Single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 11 May 2021 by Luke Simpson BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/21/3268284 62 Gresham Drive, Chadwell Heath, Romford, RM6 4TS • 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 Eligijus Valkauskas against the decision of London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 3217/20, dated 1 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 27 November 2020. • The development proposed is a single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front extension at 62 Gresham Drive, Chadwell Heath, Romford, RM6 4TS, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3217/20, dated 1 October 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 62-BC-300 (OS Map & Block Plan); 62-BC-301 (Proposed Floor Plans); 62-BC-301 (Existing Floor Plans); 62-BC-302 (Existing Elevations); and 62-BC-305 (Proposed Elevations). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. Preliminary Matters 2. The reason for refusal refers to the policies in the London Plan (March 2016). Since the appeal application was decided, the London Plan (2021) has been published and is now part of the development plan. The previous policies have therefore been replaced. In relation to this matter, I have sought further representations from the Council and the appellant. The appellant has provided further representations on the London Plan (2021) Policies, but no further representations have been received from the Council. I have taken into account the appellant’s representations. 3. In any event, in this case, I consider that I can rely on the policies of the adopted Redbridge Local Plan (LP) and the guidance contained within the Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and am satisfied that the design based policies of the new London Plan reflect these. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/21/3268284 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Reasons 5. The host property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, which is set back from the adjoining property at 64 Gresham Drive (No 64) at two storey level. At single storey level, the dwelling extends forwards, in line with the adjacent front building line of No 64. During my site visit, I noted that this relationship is different to that of surrounding properties on Gresham Drive, which typically comprise of terraced dwellings with consistent front building lines. I also noted that the design of projecting single storey elements in the immediately surrounding area varies in terms of layout and scale. 6. The width and height of the proposed development would visually reflect the scale and orientation of the single storey front projections of the neighbouring dwellings at 60 and 58 Gresham Drive. As a result, the proposed development would not upset the symmetry of this property in conjunction with adjacent properties. 7. The proposed development would be similar in scale and appearance to the existing single storey front projection of the host property and would not extend further forwards. The development would therefore appear as a subordinate feature of the host property. Furthermore, the existing setback of the host dwelling from No 64 would assist in assimilating the proposed development with the surrounding area. 8. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. 9. The proposed development would therefore comply with LP policies LP26 and LP30, which partly seek to ensure that new development incorporates high quality design that is in keeping with local character. The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to the SPD, which provides further guidance on local design issues, although I note that the Council has not referred to any specific points within. Nonetheless, I have not identified any conflict with it insofar as it relates to this proposal. Conditions 10. I am imposing the standard householder conditions, as advocated by the government’s Planning Practice Guidance. These are to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved plans, and that the external materials used should reflect those of the dwelling itself. The existing and proposed floor plans, as originally submitted to the Council, both include the same plan number but are differentiated by their description. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/21/3268284 3 Conclusion 11. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Luke Simpson INSPECTOR