Erection of a 2-storey extension to side; single storey extension to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 January 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/17/3186106 38 Grenville Gardens, Woodford Green IG8 7AQ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr H Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 3050/17, dated 26 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 September 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a 2-storey extension to side; single storey extension to front. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a 2-storey extension to side; single storey extension to front at 38 Grenville Gardens, Woodford Green IG8 7AQ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 3050/17, dated 26 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Refs Sheet 1 of 3, Sheet 2 of 3, Sheet 3 of 3 and the Ordnance Survey Plan that shows the site edged red. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a predominantly 2-storey end terrace dwelling within a mainly residential area wherein dwellings vary in type, size and appearance. Like the appeal dwelling, several properties along Grenville Gardens have been externally altered and extended. Consequently, there is considerable variety in the existing built form within the local street scene to which No 38 belongs. 4. The new 2-storey side addition would extend the full depth of the main house with its front and rear walls aligned with those of the host building. Even so, it Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3186106 2 would be a proportionate addition. The new ridgeline would continue at the same height as that of the existing dwelling with a gable end, like the main house. The proposed external materials would match those of the existing dwelling and the pattern of fenestration would be consistent with the rest of the property. Taken together, I consider that the proposal would relate well to the scale, proportions, roof form and style of the host building. 5. As the proposed side extension would be in keeping with the intrinsic character and general appearance of the existing dwelling, I am unable to share the Council’s concerns that it would be visually intrusive, out of scale or that it would dominate the local street scene. While I note that the Council is critical of the proposal because it considers that the side extension would not be subservient to the main dwelling, there is nothing in the policies cited in the reason for refusal that would require it to be so. 6. The Officer’s report does refer to the Council’s Householder Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and its advice in relation to 2-storey side extensions. According to the Officer’s report, the SPD notes that this type of extension should generally incorporate, amongst other things, a set back from the main front wall and a lower ridgeline than the existing house. However, it seems to me that development proposals should each be assessed in the light of their own particular circumstances, which can vary from site to site. Furthermore, by reference to the word ‘generally’, the Officer’s report also implies that some flexibility can be applied to reflect local circumstances. Consequently, a potential conflict with some aspects of the SPD guidance is insufficient, in itself, to withhold planning permission. 7. The existing side projection of No 38 establishes a substantial built form at ground floor level up to the shared boundary with the adjacent property, which 36 Grenville Gardens. The proposal would reduce the gap at first floor level between Nos 36 and 38 by introducing additional built form. Even so, the gap above the existing ground floor side projection of No 36 would be retained and so there would be a clear visual break between the new upper sidewall and this neighbouring dwelling. The contrasting roof forms of Nos 36 and 38 and their differing heights partly due to the slight change in ground levels would visually accentuate the gap between these adjacent buildings. Consequently, Nos 36 and 38 would continue to be viewed in the street scene as separate, distinct entities. The new side addition would not, therefore, lead to a terracing effect whereby adjacent buildings visually merge due to their close proximity. 8. Having walked the length of Grenville Gardens and nearby roads, I have little doubt that the finished dwelling would blend in with the varied built form that characterises the local area. In reaching that conclusion, I acknowledge that side extensions to other properties along both sides of Grenville Gardens in particular typically include set backs from the main front wall and often a lower ridgeline than the existing dwelling. 9. The Council notes that the proposal, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent and so there is concern that the cumulative effect of similar extensions to other properties would materially harm the character of the local area. However, no particular examples have been brought to my attention that could lead to this outcome and, in any event, each case should be assessed on its own merits. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3186106 3 10. The Council raises no objection to the proposed single storey extension at the front of No 38. I, too, find this element of the appeal scheme acceptable because it would be modest in depth and scale, appropriate in design and would respect the shape and form of the building. From what I saw, several nearby dwellings have front additions that are similar to the proposal and so the front extension would not be an uncharacteristic addition. 11. Overall, I conclude on the main issue that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it does not conflict with Strategy Policy 3 of the London Borough of Redbridge Core Strategy and Policies BD1 and BD5 of the London Borough of Redbridge Borough Wide Primary Policies. These policies broadly aim to ensure that development achieves a high standard of design; is compatible with and contributes to local character; and complements the character of the building. 12. The proposal would also be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which emphasises the importance of securing high quality design. The Framework also states that development should respond to local character and add to the overall qualities of an area. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings and to require that the development is carried out in accordance with them as this provides certainty. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, a condition is attached to require that the external materials match those of the existing building, as proposed. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR