Two storey side extension to existing house set back 1m from front elevation and set back 1m from side boundary

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/17/3192389 326 Horns Road, Barkingside, Ilford, IG6 1BT  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 Mohammed Shahid against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 0140/17 dated 11 January 2017 was refused by notice dated 28 November 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension to existing house set back 1m from front elevation and set back 1m from side boundary. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling that is prominent in the streetscene, in a location on the corner of Horns Road and Princes Road. On the eastern side of Horns Road and along Princes Road in the vicinity of the site, the properties are mainly semi-detached. They are set on regular building lines with properties on corner locations positioned at 45-degree angle to the road. This arrangement gives a wider pavement area and provides a greater spacing between properties to the side, which contributes to the open character of the area. 4. The appeal property has previously been extended with a single storey side addition and has a single storey detached outbuilding, identified as a garage / workshop / store to the side of the main dwelling. The proposal would replace these existing single storey structures with a two-storey development that would significantly increase its scale and bulk. I note that the two-storey side extension would be set back from the front elevation by 1m and also the side boundary by the same distance. It would also not project beyond the rear wall and have a lower ridgeline than the main dwelling. In these respects, the Appellant has stated that the development would accord with the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and also Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3192389 2 not result in a terracing effect. It would also utilise matching materials. However, the width of the extension at the front, and its angled design would result in a dominant addition that would unbalance this pair of semi-detached properties. Given its scale and bulk, it would not have subordinate appearance to the host dwelling and it would result in a reduction in the space to the side of the property, to the detriment of the open character of the area. 5. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would therefore conflict with Strategic Policy 3 of the Redbridge Core Strategy and Policy BD1 and BD5 of the Council’s Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document, which require, amongst other matters, for development to respect the amenity of a locality and not dominate the existing building. It would also be contrary to the SPD, which seeks to achieve high quality design. Other Matters 6. I note the appeal application followed pre-application discussions with the Council, the length of time it took for the Council to determine the application, and also other related concerns on the recommendation for approval changing. This appeal follows the Council’s formal decision and these matters do not have a bearing on the planning merits of the proposal before me. I can confirm that this appeal has been considered on its own merits. 7. The proposal would not have an adverse effect on neighbouring occupiers living conditions. This is however a neutral consideration and not a benefit of the proposal. 8. The appellant has made reference to a number of other properties in the area, which have had two storey extensions. Whilst some details of these referenced extensions have been provided, I am not aware of the full circumstances of those cases. I am however required to determine the appeal before me on its own merits. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. F Rafiq INSPECTOR