Single storey front extension, single storey rear extension, first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2019 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/D/19/3222106 11 Palmerston Road, Walthamstow, London E17 6PR • 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. and Mrs. Khalid Mehmood against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref 182667, dated 13 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 November 2018. • The development proposed is “single storey front extension, single storey rear extension, first floor side extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. No 11 is a semi-detached property located in an area with a mix of uses and properties of varied designs and styles. It has an existing single storey flat roofed side extension that draws the eye and is very prominent in the street scene because of its materials and roof. Its presence already reduces the symmetry between this property and its adjoining neighbour to an extent. However, whilst the property is not listed and does not fall within a Conservation Area, the pair is an imposing building full of character and detailed features. It makes an important and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and in particular to the street scene. 4. The property is on a slight curve in the road. As a result there is an open aspect to it and the narrowness of the building is clearly visible from the south. 5. The proposed single storey front extension would appear out of character because of its position, scale and design. The building line is particularly important. The extension would project beyond this and be very close to the road. As a result it would obscure some of the property’s features including its bay window and porch which adds to the character of the house. These features are also important to the pair giving it symmetry. 6. The addition of a first floor extension would extend the width of this narrow pair. This would reduce the symmetry of the pair and extend the first floor into an open gap. Due to the configuration of No 11 and its relationship with Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/19/3222106 2 nearby properties, this would at least partially block an existing open gap at first floor level. This would make the dwelling even more imposing and create a sense of greater enclosure. This openness gives a sense of relief and allows views to the rear and of surrounding properties and is an important part of the character of this part of the street. Given the curvature of the road, it would block longer distance views of buildings beyond No 11 from the south. 7. The proposed roof lights to the front elevation would contribute to the unbalancing of the pair and look out of place. The detailed design such as fenestration position does not reflect the character or features of the host building and this adds to the visual impact. 8. Turning now to the rear element, whilst I agree with the Council that its height and depth would be acceptable, I consider its flat roofed design would be out of character. It would not appear as a subservient element behind the existing single storey or proposed first floor element. Glimpses of the proposed rear element would be gained from long distance views from Mansfield Road and beyond because of the curvature of the road. 9. Overall, all three elements would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS15 and Development Management Policies DM4 and DM29. Amongst other things, these policies require development to be of a high quality design, relate to the host building, respect the street scene and respond positively to its local context and character. It would also not take account of the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. 10. Whilst there is no objection in principle to extending the property, I have found the three elements, individually and cumulatively, have a harmful effect. Any benefit of additional or improved accommodation for the appellant’s family would not be outweighed by the harmful and long term effect of the proposal. 11. Accordingly for the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR