Erection of a two storey side extension, attic conversion, roof alteration and demolition of conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 September 2021 by Rebecca Thomas MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 November 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/21/3274635 7 Meadow Walk, South Woodford, London E18 2EN • 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 Ms Renata Wojciechowska against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 3928/20, dated 24 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 26 March 2021. • The development proposed is erection of a two storey side extension, attic conversion, roof alteration and demolition of conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension, attic conversion, roof alteration and demolition of conservatory at 7 Meadow Walk, South Woodford, London E18 2EN in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 3928/20 dated 24 November 2020 and in accordance with the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision; 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building; 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Block Plan, 19-523-P02, 19-523-P05, 19-523-P03, 19- 523-P01, 19-523-P06, 19-523-P09, 19-523-P04, 19-523-P10, 19-523-P07, 19-523-P08, Location Plan, PR/2, PR/1, PR/3, PR/5, PR/6, PR/4, PR/9, PR/10, PR/8, PR/7. Procedural Matters 2. The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. In its decision notice, the Council describes the development as “Demolish conservatory. Two storey side and rear extension incorporating a Juliet balcony. Loft conversion with dormer and roof lights. Alterations to roof and fenestrations (Summary)” 3. Since the submission of the appeal, the National Planning Policy Framework from 2019 has been replaced, with the new version being published in July 2021 (the Framework). Amongst other changes, Section 12 has been Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/21/3274635 2 amended to reflect the new National Model Design Code. Nevertheless the character protection aims of both local policy and the Framework are similar and so neither party has been prejudiced by this change in policy circumstances. Main Issue 4. The Council’s decision notice provides two reasons for refusal. Nonetheless, I consider that they consider similar grounds such that the sole main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is located in a residential street which has a variety of dwellings of varying ages and styles. The appeal site itself is located on a corner plot, where Meadow Walk culminates in a cul-de-sac. In the immediate area are a number of single storey dwellings, each with varying appearance and features. Other dwellings nearby are two storey, with varying details and features such as timber, brick and painted render. Dwellings have been treated and altered in a number of ways, displaying varying styles and designs. 6. The appeal site is a detached dwelling which can be accessed from Meadow Walk on both sides (south and east) with the entrance door facing the south of the street. Given the appeal site’s location on a corner plot, the eastern and southern elevations of the house in particular are highly visible. The dwelling features mock timber framing with brick and a tiled roof. The house features a Mansard style roof and dormer window, with the exposed gable of this roof facing the south. The eastern elevation comprises a dual pitched gabled elevation, with other additions to the northern elevation which has a mono-pitched roof and a single storey conservatory beyond. 7. The southern elevation of the dwelling appears to be a secondary elevation given the gable/Mansard style profile, giving the impression as seen from the street, that the main or front elevation of the dwelling is set to the east, with the defined gable feature with secondary elements of the house being set back from this prominent feature. 8. The proposal would introduce a full height extension to match the existing gable which faces east and would bring this gable closer to the street, and would feature a dormer window and full height glazed window. This would include a further alterations to the northern elevation, incorporating a crown roof to accommodate these. Although the proposal would not be set down or set back from the original features, it would remain below the main ridge height of the highest part of the main roof, meeting the apex of the gable and would reflect the existing form and layout of the dwelling. In this way the proposed development would have regard to the existing form of the building, and the proposal ensures that the changes avoid any further variance to roof heights or styles which may result in a confused and discordant appearance. 9. The introduction of this extension would reinforce the existing prominence of the gable feature to the east and the impression of this being the main elevation of the dwelling as seen from the street. Nonetheless, the use of Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/21/3274635 3 sympathetic materials, detailing and characteristics would support the extension and complement the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 10. The additions to the side and rear including the crown roof would not be easily seen and would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the locality. The proposal would ensure that the extension would sit at the existing ridgeline and would also make use of matching materials. The proposal would not be excessively dominant and would not result in any undue sense of appearing disproportionate to the host dwelling. I have taken into account the varying dwellings in Meadow Walk and the wider area, which have been altered in varying ways and as such there would be no discordance with the character and appearance of the local area. 11. Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy LP26 and Policy LP30 of the Local Plan1 (Local Plan) which expect development to, amongst other things, respect the local character of the area and make a positive architectural contribution to its context and location. 12. The proposals would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework which requires, at paragraph 130, development to be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character to create high quality buildings and spaces. Other Matters 13. I have had regard to other matters raised including harm to living conditions in particular to the occupiers of the dwelling at no. 9 Meadow Walk, however the proposed extension would not project beyond the existing to the north and as such there would be no harm from loss of light or overshadowing. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard timescale for implementation condition, it is necessary to attach a condition confirming the approved drawings in the interests of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, I have also imposed a condition to ensure that the external materials would match the existing. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Rebecca Thomas INSPECTOR 1 Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (March 2018)