Retention of front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2019 by D Jackman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/19/3223252 22 Morris Avenue, Manor Park, London E12 6EW • 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 Rozob Ali against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham. • The application Ref 18/03051/HH, dated 25 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2018. • The development proposed is retention of front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the front porch at 22 Morris Avenue, Manor Park, London E12 6EW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/03051/HH, dated 25 October 2018, and the plans submitted with it. Procedural Matters 2. At the time of my site visit the development to which this appeal relates had already been built and I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. I have noted that an Enforcement Notice (ref.18/00554/ENFC) has been issued in respect of the development which is the subject of this appeal. This is, however, a matter between the Council and the appellant and has not influenced my decision on this appeal. 4. The Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) decision notice refers to the submission versions of the relevant Newham Local Plan (NLP) policies. On 10 December 2018 the LPA adopted the NLP and I have determined the appeal in accordance with the relevant adopted policies. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality generally. Reasons 6. Morris Avenue is characterised by terraced properties of a similar age with distinctive features including double storey canted bays with decorative detailing on the supporting uprights and between storeys. On most of the Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/19/3223252 2 properties without a front porch extension, decorative stucco work over the arched entranceway is visible. Notwithstanding whether planning permission was granted or not, many of the properties on Morris Avenue, and surrounding roads, have porches to the front entrances, with variations in design, appearance, size, roof treatment and relationship to the host properties and, as such, form part of the established street scene. Despite the variety of front porches, there is still a cohesive feel to the character and appearance of the street. 7. The porch to which this appeal relates, by virtue of its siting at the front of the property, is prominent in the street. However, as it is single storey and relatively modest in size it relates appropriately to the proportions of the host house. A similar porch has been erected on the neighbouring property, 24 Morris Avenue, and is the subject of a separate appeal (appeal ref. APP/G5750/D/19/3223287). 8. The porch has a mono-pitched roof which terminates just below the sill of the window above and has a similar height to the adjoining porch at 20 Morris Avenue. The porch projects slightly forward of that next door but I saw some variety in the projection of porches in the locality and it does not appear out of place. The Council indicates that the porch results in identifiable features of the bay being removed but there is limited substantive evidence in this regard. 9. I note that the Council considers the appeal property to be a good example of the original properties on Morris Avenue, hosting several original features which the Council would seek to retain. In common with other porches in the road, it largely obscures from public view the decorative plaster work above the arched entrance to the property. The porch also covers some of the ground floor bay window. However, it neither dominates nor engulfs the bay as it is to one side only and the chamfered side to the porch, which is reflective of the form of the bay, allows the adjoining upright, and its decorative detailing, to remain largely visible. The remainder of the bay, and its distinctive features, remains uninterrupted and intact. Accordingly, whilst the porch covers some of the characteristic, distinctive features of the property, most of the front elevation is unaffected by the development and accordingly I do not consider this to be unduly harmful to its appearance. 10. The Council make the point that the materials used do not resemble materials that would traditionally be found within properties in this area and therefore do not appear sympathetic to the main dwelling. However, the plain tiles to the roof are broadly similar in appearance to the plain tiles to the main roof, whilst the brown black frame and decorative detail on the glazing match the colour, material and glazing detail of the windows and frames to the front elevation. 11. All in all the appeal scheme is not significantly different from the numerous other examples in the locality and it does blend into what is now the established street scene. As such, I do not consider that it unduly detracts from the character and appearance of the host property or the locality generally. Accordingly, the proposal does not conflict with NLP Policies S6 and SP3, the London Plan Policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 or the LPA’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Altering and Extending Your Home’ (2018) which, amongst other matters, expect high quality development which contributes to the local character and desirability of the area as a place to live in. Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/19/3223252 3 Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. D Jackman INSPECTOR