Erection of first floor side and single storey rear extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Flood Risk
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 25 February 2022
by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8th March 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/D/22/3290544
163 Mitcham Road, Croydon CR0 3NB
• 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 Mrs Breshneaf Baskaran against the decision of the Council of
the London Borough of Croydon.
• The application Ref: 21/04487/HSE dated 27 August 2021, was refused by notice dated
22 October 2021.
• The development proposed is erection of first floor side and single storey rear
extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues in this appeal are:
a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing
property and on the street scene, and
b) The effect of the proposal on surface water flooding.
Reasons
Issue a) Character and appearance
3. The appeal property is an end of terrace, two storey residential dwelling, on the
south-western side of Mitcham Road (A236), within a predominantly residential
area, comprising a mix of semi-detached properties and short terraces. The
property has previously been extended with a wrap around rear and side single
storey extension.
4. The proposal would seek to add a further 3m extension across the extended
width at the rear and build over at first floor at the side under a hipped roof.
The proposal would follow the projecting building line of the existing house at
the front together with its catslide roof slope.
5. The combination of the proposed first floor side addition and the rear
extension, taken together with the existing extension would result in a very
wide and deep property which would be out of scale and proportion with the
existing property and adjoining properties. It would appear very bulky in form
and an overdevelopment of its site.
Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/22/3290544
2
6. Despite some alterations and the existing single storey side extension, the
existing terrace retains a visual unity and symmetry with a central gable and
flanked by the cat slide roofs at either end. This symmetry would be harmed
with the proposed side extension, which would be particularly apparent at roof
level with the extended cat slide roof. This would be visually intrusive in and
therefore harmful to the street scene.
7. I therefore conclude that the proposed extensions would materially harm the
character and appearance of the existing property and the terrace within which
it is situated as well as the street scene. This would conflict with policies SP4
and DM10 of The Croydon Local Plan (2018), the Suburban Design Guide
Supplementary Planning Document 2019 and policy D3 of the London Plan
(2021) as well as Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, all of
which amongst other things seek a high quality of design which respects the
local context.
Issue b) Surface Water Flooding
8. The proposed development would extend the footprint of the residential
dwelling, with the proposed single storey residential extension, but this would
be built over existing hard landscaping. However, I understand that this area of
Mitcham Road is identified as being at risk of surface water flooding.
9. Policies SP6.4 and DM25 of The Croydon Local Plan (2018) are clear that all
development should address this issue and no information has been provided.
The Appellant has suggested that the matter could be addressed by condition,
but I cannot be satisfied, with no further information before me, that the issue
of surface water flooding would be capable of being satisfactorily mitigated. I
cannot therefore be satisfied that there would not be harm from an increased
risk of surface water flooding, which would be contrary to Policies SP6.4 and
DM25 of The Croydon Local Plan (2018).
Conclusion
10. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
L J Evans
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.