Two storey rear/side extension, front porch to entrance and boundary metal fence to front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2018 by R Sabu BA(Hons), BArch, MA, PgDip ARB an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/18/3204126 1B Clifford Road, Canning Town, London E16 4JW  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 Vainoras Alvydas against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham.  The application Ref 18/00280/HH, dated 29 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 March 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey rear/side extension, front porch to entrance and boundary metal fence to front garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The reasons for refusal refer to policies from 2 versions of the emerging Local Plan, namely policies S4, SP1, SP2, SP3 and SP8 of the Local Plan (February 2018) Secretary of State Submission Version and policies S1, S6, SP1, SP2, SP3 and SP8 of the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan (November 2017). I acknowledge that the emerging Local Plan has been submitted for independent examination; however it is not yet a part of the adopted development plan. Therefore at this stage, given the evidence before me, I can give these policies limited weight only. 3. Similarly, the reasons for refusal refer to Policies D1, D2 and D7 of The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for public consultation December 2017). Since these are not a part of the adopted London Plan, I can give these policies limited weight only. 4. Although there were two applicants named on the application form, only 1 name was provided on the appeal form. Therefore the appeal proceeds in Mr Vainoras Alvydas’ name only. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/18/3204126 2 Reasons 6. The appeal property is a semi-detached house in an area characterised by 2 storey post War semi-detached and terraced dwellings as well as 3 storey flats. Front gardens to the properties and a modest public square immediately adjacent to the appeal site give the area a spacious feel. 7. The ridgeline and roof profile of the proposed 2 storey side extension would be in line with the existing building. The front elevation would be set back from the main building and the windows would be in harmony with those of the existing building. In addition, the materials are proposed to match the host property. Furthermore, when viewed against the 3 storey block of flats to the rear of the property and the adjacent public square, the proposed 2 storey extension would not dominate or encroach upon the openness of the area. Therefore I find that the 2 storey side extension would not harm the character and appearance of the existing building and street scene and would be acceptable in principle. 8. I acknowledge that the pitch of the rear first floor roof follows the existing roof; however the rear dormer windows would appear awkward and be of a scale that would visually dominate the host building when viewed from the public square and from the approach to Clifford Road from Hermit Road. The rear extension would give rise to an expanse of roofing on the rear elevation that would appear unbroken except for the dormers and would be incongruous within the street scene. In addition the angle and change in direction of the flank wall of the rear extension and the boundary wall would result in an awkward edge to the public square. 9. While the 2 storey side extension is acceptable in principle, the addition of the rear first floor extension with dormer windows would result in development that, as a whole, would dominate the host building and not be subservient to it. It would also serve to significantly unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties. Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to the Council’s Altering And Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document which states that, ‘… any new extension should be subservient to the original house and demonstrate clear setbacks from existing elevations.’ 10. The front boundary enclosure would be higher than those of neighbouring properties and interrupt the openness of the area. Furthermore, the use of metal railings at the proposed height would sit uncomfortably in the street scene. I therefore find that the proposed boundary metal fence to front garden would harm the character and appearance of the street scene. 11. For the reasons discussed above I find that the two storey rear/side extension and boundary metal fence to front garden would conflict with policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016) (London Plan) which together aim to ensure a high quality of development which responds to the local character of the area and the public realm as well as seeking well designed architectural compositions. 12. Since I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, it would not accord with policies SP1 and SP3 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan: Core Strategy (adopted January 2012) (Core Strategy) which seeks to achieve an integrated series of successful Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/18/3204126 3 places which respond among other things, to the character of districts, neighbourhoods and quarters. 13. The proposed front boundary would conflict with policy SP8 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan: Detailed Sites and Policies Development Plan Document (adopted 20 October 2016) (DSPDPD) which aims to achieve neighbourliness and among other things, seeks integration with the street scene including consideration for boundary treatments. 14. Policy S4 of the Core Strategy discusses the regeneration and renewal of Canning Town and Custom House with particular emphasis on strategic sites. The appeal site is not identified to be within a strategic site and I find no other reasons to find conflict with this policy. 15. Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy seeks to achieve healthy neighbourhoods. In terms of housing quality, the policy aims to ensure adequate ventilation, insulation and space standards. I find no reason from the evidence before me to find conflict with this policy. Other Matters 16. The appellant has referred to the proposed railings providing better security, however no substantive information has been provided to support this assertion. I therefore give limited weight to this benefit. 17. I note that the Council have not objected to the proposed front porch. Based on the evidence before me I find that the design of the front porch is acceptable, however this does not outweigh the harm to character and appearance caused by the rear first floor extension and dormer windows. 18. I acknowledge that the appellant has accepted reducing the railings of the front boundary enclosure, however I have not received any such amended plans and the Council has not commented on the matter. Therefore, I find this would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and street scene caused by the rear first floor extension and dormer windows. 19. I note the pre-application advice given by the Council as outlined by both parties. The appellant expressed concern regarding the service given by the Council; however this is not a matter for my deliberation and has not affected my decision. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R Sabu INSPECTOR