Appeal 6008706

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would result in extensions to the side and rear of the property and a new front door with a porch. The side extension would be part single and part two storey with the first floor element being set back from the frontage and from the side. The description in the header above was agreed during the application process.

An appeal, reference 6003133, for a front porch, double storey side and single storey rear extension was dismissed on 17 February 2026. That decision letter sets out the history of the [name] which is accepted as being a non-designated heritage asset. It is not necessary to reproduce the background set out in that decision other than to reiterate that the estate is characterised by a regular street layout and symmetrical short terraces as well as wide verges, small open spaces, street trees and green corners. The regular appearance and pattern of development and the spacious character make an important contribution to the historic significance of the area. The appeal property currently retains its original layout and appearance, albeit the garage has been removed. This corner garden, together with its neighbour’s, provide spaciousness to the setting of this terrace and separation from the adjoining terrace.

It is not possible to directly compare this proposal with the dismissed appeal proposal as the plans for that development have not been provided. I must in any event, consider this proposal on its own particular merits. With regard to the impact Appeal Decision: 6008706 on the openness of this corner plot, the appellant suggests that the proposal responds positively through the chamfered design reflecting site geometry; the balanced massing distribution; and the retention of spatial openness in a structured form. It is suggested that corner plots are inherently more capable of accommodating extensions without unacceptable harm.

The plans demonstrate that the proposal would differentiate the side extension from the original dwelling by way of a first floor set back. Although limited, this would provide some articulation to the frontage. Whilst this would marginally reduce the prominence of the new works, the side additions would nevertheless be perceived as large scale development within this area of open garden. The scale of the extension would harmfully erode the spacious and open character of the plot and be at odds with the historic pattern of development in the area.

With regard to design, the appellant suggests that the scale of the reduced first floor element; the introduction of a hipped roof; and set backs from the front and side elevations, directly address earlier concerns regarding bulk and dominance. Furthermore, the first floor set back; reduced upper floor footprint; and articulated roof form, represent widely accepted methods of achieving a subordinate addition and are consistent with appeal precedent.

[name] have considered the above, the design shown, particularly dealing with the angled built form abutting the shared boundary; and the consequential need for a modified hipped roof, would not result in a satisfactory design solution. Although care has been taken in seeking to include details that reflect and respect the form of the original house, it has not been possible to accommodate the individual elements within a cohesive design solution. Overall, the set back of the first floor accommodation would not be sufficient to reduce the dominance of the extension and the convoluted design, particularly of the proposed roof form, would draw attention to these works. The spacious setting of this dwelling and its simple design would be lost and replaced with a contrived design that would appear cramped and overly dominant within this corner plot.

The proposal would represent poor design in this particular context and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the wider area. It would be contrary to the design requirements of policies SP2, DMD1(b) and DMD5(1a&b) of The Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024) (LP).

The proposal would erode some of the important characteristics of the original [name] layout that provide it with its significance and interest. It would not preserve the overall character of the [name] as suggested by the appellant. It would result in some harm. It would therefore be contrary to policy HC1(C) of the London Plan (2021) and LP policy DMD4(3) as it would not conserve the significance of the heritage asset or be sympathetic to it. It would also conflict with the specific [name] policy SPP6(10) which requires that all development (including extensions) must integrate with the existing character of the area.

As the proposal would result in some harm, paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that the effect on the significance of the non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any Appeal Decision: 6008706 harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. This judgement is set out in the concluding paragraphs.

The previous Inspector reported that the development would provide space for the appellant’s ‘growing family, for the occupiers to work from home and an elderly family member with health conditions to live at [address]. The Inspector also made a judgement having regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child, together with the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. No information has been provided in this regard within the application or appeal documents provided by the applicant or the agent. There is no information setting out the benefits to, or requirements of, the appellant’s family. Documents relating to the previous appeal have not been provided and there is no indication that the circumstances considered at that time remain as previously considered. In the absence of any other information in this regard, I afford weight to the private benefits of the increased accommodation; and the economic benefits that would flow from the investment required to carry out such works.

Reference has been made to other developments locally, including the corner properties opposite. These were also considered by the previous Inspector. They do not appear to be entirely comparable and although I have had regard to them, they do not offer weight in favour of accepting development that would represent poor design and conflict with current development plan policies.

Reference has been made to potential permitted development fall-back positions whereby development could be undertaken without formal consent. No detailed designs have been provided and there is no evidence before me to indicate that such works are likely should this appeal fail. The potential for an unspecified alternative development does not therefore offer weight in favour of the proposal.

There would be some social benefits from the improvement of the property; and economic benefits from the works. The proposal would not harm neighbouring living conditions; and no concerns have been raised locally. The proposal would however result in some harm to elements of the non-designated heritage asset that add to its significance. The scale of the harm would be moderate. The benefits of the proposal would not outweigh this concern.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal would represent poor design and would detract from the character and appearance of the area. The benefits would not outweigh these concerns.

In conclusion, whilst there are matters that weigh in favour of allowing alterations to the property, they are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I am also not satisfied that these concerns could be addressed by conditions. I therefore dismiss the appeal.