Erection of a single storey rear extension at first floor level, 2.0m in length

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 January 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/17/3187028 8 Halley Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8DT  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 Ibrar Aslam against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham.  The application Ref 17/01785/HH, dated 23 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 August 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a single storey rear extension at first floor level, 2.0m in length. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension at first floor level, 2.0m in length at 8 Halley Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8DT in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/01785/HH, dated 23 May 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision. Procedural matters 2. The surname of the appellant is given as Mr Islam on the planning appeal form, whereas the surname appearing on the application form is Mr Aslam. As the right of appeal rests solely with the original applicant, I have proceeded on the basis that Mr Aslam is the appellant in this case. 3. From the limited information provided, it is unclear whether or not the rear dormer extension as it is shown on the drawings or as I saw in place at the site visit has planning permission. For the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the proposed development as it is stated in the above heading. Main issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling within a tightly knit residential area, wherein 2-storey terraces predominate. In the rear of the terrace to which No 8 belongs, most properties have paired 2-storey outriggers with pitched roofs, which, to some extent, a sense of rhythm across the existing terrace. Notwithstanding this pattern, many properties in the same terrace as the appeal dwelling have been extended and externally altered at the rear, at Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/17/3187028 2 ground and roof levels. As most of these built additions are sizeable and differ in design, depth and in their general appearance, the overall visual effect is to give the rear of the terrace of which No 8 forms part a varied profile. 6. The proposal is to elongate the existing first floor rear projection of No 8 by about 2-metres. It would be modest in depth and a proportionate addition to the host building. The appeal extension would replicate the original design of that part of the host building to which it would attach. In doing so, the outward projecting mono pitched roof of the rear outrigger would be broadly consistent with other properties in the same terrace and the traditional shape of the rear elevation would be, to some extent, restored. Furthermore, a greater sense of balance to the profile of the rear façade of No 8 would be achieved with the new built form creating an intermediary step between the ground floor addition and the main roof. Taken together with the use of external materials to match the existing dwelling, the new development would not detract from the character and appearance of the host building. 7. As the appeal scheme would be at the back of No 8 views of it would be largely confined to the rears of the properties on either side of the site and beyond its rear boundary. From these vantage points, the proposal would be seen against the substantial and varied rear built form of No 8 and other nearby properties. In that varied built context, the proposed development would not appear incongruous nor would it materially harm the visual amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties. 8. The rear of the finished building would not fully conform to the prevailing pattern in the same terrace where most properties retain their 2-storey outriggers. When seen from the rear garden of No 8, the prevailing characteristic of the rear terrace is, however, its varied built form given the plethora of built additions along it at ground and roof levels. Taking into account the rear of the terrace, as a whole, I find that the completed dwelling would not look out of place because it would be compatible in its context. 9. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it does not conflict with Policies S6, SP1, SP3 and H1 of the Newham Core Strategy or Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan. These policies aim to ensure that development achieves a high quality of urban design that is appropriate to its context, and respects and builds on the positive aspects of local character. The proposal also complies with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states, amongst other things, that development should respond to local character. 10. 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 finished building, a condition is attached to require that the external materials match those of the existing dwelling. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/17/3187028 3 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/17/3187028 8 Halley Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8DT Schedule of 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 C55/8HAL/17/PL1, C55/8HAL/17/PL2 and C55/8HAL/17/OS. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.