To extend the existing outrigger and to make the existing outrigger flat roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2019 by A McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/19/3224069 2 Rutland Road, Ilford IG1 1EN • 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 R Rana against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 4644/18, dated 12 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 January 2019. • The development proposed is to extend the existing outrigger and to make the existing outrigger flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to an end of terrace dwelling which is within a terrace of properties of similar design, including rear outriggers with mono-pitched roofs. The proposal would extend the width of the original outrigger by around 1.75 metres and replace the existing pitched roof with a flat roof. Moreover, the scheme would extend to around two-thirds of the width of the host property. 4. From the evidence, the rear outrigger and its pitched roof form an integral design feature of the host property and the adjacent properties within the terrace along Rutland Road. I note also that the outriggers of these properties predominantly remain in place and form a regular pattern in the built form of the immediate area. Moreover, the host property is in a pair which has a symmetrical form in terms of design with regard to the outrigger of 4 Rutland Road. These two properties reflect and contribute to the consistent pattern and form of the rear elevation of the terrace on Rutland Road. The proposed alterations to the outrigger, including its width and roof form, would disrupt this prevailing pattern and form and result in the loss of the outrigger as a significant characteristic of the host property. 5. In addition, the removal of the mono-pitched roof form and its replacement with a flat roof of a larger extent would create a dominant and visually intrusive feature. This would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the visual amenity of the wider area. Furthermore, the width of the proposed first floor extension would dominate the appearance of the property when viewed in combination with the existing ground floor and roof extensions. As such, Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/19/3224069 2 it would be an incongruous and unsympathetic addition to the dwelling which would be visually harmful to its character and appearance and that of its immediate surroundings and properties. 6. As a result, I find that the proposal would result in the loss of key characteristics of the host property, in terms of the scale and proportion of the outrigger and its mono-pitched roof. Moreover, it would diminish the visual quality and character of the property and be detrimental to the characteristic pattern and appearance of development in the local area. 7. I note the appellant’s arguments relating to the proposal harmonising with the other extensions to create a cohesive appearance and that, in the appellant’s view, the proposal would still appear sub-ordinate to the host property and be in keeping with the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling. However, whilst the proposed extension would be similar in design and appearance to the extensions already completed or under construction, the cumulative effect of these would result in a property which would be of a character and appearance significantly out of step with the key features of adjacent properties within the terrace. 8. Similarly, in terms of the sub-ordinate appearance of the proposal, although the scale and proportions of the proposed extension would be aligned with the host property as a whole, the cumulative visual impact of the proposal and the other alterations and extensions would result in a property which would appear substantially out of character with other properties nearby. Therefore, it would significantly harm the visual amenity, character and appearance of the property and its surroundings. 9. The appellant refers to several other properties where similar rear extensions have been built, most notably properties on Ilford Lane. I have had due regard to all examples put forward. In relation to the Ilford Lane properties, I note that most, if not all, have an element of commercial use with residential above. This differs from this appeal case I find it likely that such circumstances may have resulted in those extensions being constructed. Notwithstanding this, I do not have the full details of any other examples before me. Therefore, I give them limited weight in my decision making. In any event, I must assess the appeal proposal on its own merits and circumstances and confirm that I have done so. 10. The proposed scheme would provide more accommodation within the host property and replace the alleged substandard accommodation in the existing outrigger in terms of limited height. Furthermore, I note that the additional space would be provided without increasing the footprint of the property. Nonetheless, having carefully considered all matters before me, I find the benefits put forward would not outweigh the significant harm identified. 11. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that development is of high design quality and complements existing local character. Conclusion 12. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR