Alterations and roof extension of existing two-storey building and garage and formation of basement under footprint of existing building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 August 2017 by L J O'Brien BA (Hons) MA a person appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 06 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/K5600/D/17/3174514 4a Clareville Street, London, SW7 5AQ  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 G Patel against the decision of The Council of The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.  The application Ref PP/17/00073, dated 4 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 April 2017.  The development proposed is alterations and roof extension of existing two-storey building and garage and formation of basement under footprint of existing building. Preliminary matter 1. Concerns regarding the accuracy of plan No. 764-000-L-003 have been raised by a third party. The Council’s committee report advises that a revised plan which corrected these inaccuracies was received prior to the determination of the planning application (764-000-L-0003 B), this is confirmed by the notes on the plan itself. I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations and roof extension of existing two-storey building and garage and formation of basement under footprint of existing building at 4a Clareville Street, London, SW7 5AQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PP/17/00073, dated 4 January 2017 subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Ordnance Survey Location Plan, 764- 000L A, 764-000L- 001A, 764-000L- 002A, 764-000L- 003B, 764-200L- 000C, 764-200L- 001E, 764-200L- X01D 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan. Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/17/3174514 2 5) Before the relevant part of the work is begun a full window schedule including elevations at 1:20 and sections through at 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed, and maintained thereafter, in accordance with the approved details: 6) The external windows and doors hereby permitted shall be timber framed and painted, with the windows being double hung, white painted, sliding sashes and so maintained. 7) The roof slopes of the extension hereby permitted shall be clad in natural slates and so maintained. 8) The cheeks of the dormer windows shall be clad in lead and maintained as such thereafter. 9) No development shall commence until a Chartered Civil Engineer or Chartered Structural Engineer has been appointed to supervise the construction works throughout their duration and their appointment confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. In the event that the appointed engineer ceases to perform that role for whatever reason before the construction works are completed those works shall cease until a replacement chartered engineer of the afore-described qualification has been appointed to supervise their completion and their appointment confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. At no time shall any construction work take place unless an engineer is currently appointed and the Local Planning authority has been notified of their appointment. 10) No development shall commence until such time as the lead contractor, or the site, is signed to the Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS) and its published Code of Considerate Practice, and the details of (i) the membership, (ii) contact details, (iii) working hours as stipulated under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and (iv) Certificate of Compliance, are clearly displayed on the site so that they can be easily read by passing members of the public, and shall thereafter be maintained on display throughout the duration of the works forming the subject of this permission. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the construction of the proposal on highway safety and on the living conditions of nearby residents. Reasons 4. The appeal property, 4a Clareville Street, is a two-storey building on a triangular plot located at the forked junction between Clareville Street and Manson Mews. The site is within the Queen’s Gate Conservation Area. 5. The proposal is for alterations and a roof extension to the existing two-storey building with the addition of a garage and a basement. In 2015, permission was granted for a similar scheme. This scheme differs in a number of minor ways, including the internal room layout, but most notably it now includes the formation of a basement. 6. Officers recommended the scheme for approval subject to a number of conditions. However, a number of objections were received regarding the Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/17/3174514 3 impact of the construction on highway safety and living conditions of nearby residents. This led to the officer’s recommendation being overturned by members. 7. The application was accompanied by a draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) outlining a number of details and procedures to be followed throughout the course of the development’s construction. These details include; site access, spoil removal, dust and debris, noise and safety amongst a number of others. 8. The CTMP was amended following consultation with local residents and interested parties. Highway safety 9. The key issues in respect of highway safety arise due to the constrained nature of the site, the narrow pavements and the proximity of the site to the nearby school. 10. The Council’s Director of Transportation and Highways was satisfied that that the CTMP set out an acceptable methodology for the management of construction traffic, subject to a number of amendments. However, a number of the objections on file raise concerns which were shared by the Council’s Members regarding the impact of construction on highway safety. 11. During my site visit I observed very few vehicular movements in the vicinity of the appeal site. The vehicles I did note were travelling at low speeds. In my view, the limited speed of traffic in the area is likely to be consistent due to the road layout and conditions. I acknowledge that during peak hours, such as school pick up and drop off, the volume of traffic is likely to increase. However, I consider that, subject to the clarifications sought by the Council, traffic flow could be effectively managed through the CTMP so as not to cause an unreasonable level of congestion. 12. I am satisfied that the limited speeds of vehicles and the relatively low volume of traffic would combine with the implementation of an effective CTMP to safeguard the well-being of all road users during the construction period. 13. The appellant has stated that there would be no objection to further details and discussion around the CTMP. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that an acceptable resolution should be achievable following further discussions between the appellant and the Council to make some amendments and clarifications to the CTMP. 14. The Council’s Basements Supplementary Planning Document, April 2016 (SPD), states that whilst a draft CTMP will be required at application stage the requirement to submit a final CTMP can be secured by condition. 15. As the appellant rightly states, the householder appeal process is not the appropriate method for such technical negotiations and as such, and in line with the requirements of the SPD, I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of a final CTMP for agreement by the Council. 16. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the construction of the proposed development would not have an unacceptably harmful impact on highway safety. As such I find no conflict with policy CL7 of the Royal Borough Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/17/3174514 4 of Kensington and Chelsea Consolidated Local Plan, July 2015 (LP) or the SPD which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that traffic and construction activity do not cause unacceptable harm to pedestrian, cycle, vehicular and road safety, significantly increase traffic congestion, nor place unreasonable inconvenience on the day to day life of those living, working and visiting nearby. Living conditions 17. A number of concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the construction of the proposal on the living conditions of those in the vicinity. However, the Council Officers were satisfied that the proposals contained within the CTMP would minimise such impacts. 18. I acknowledge that construction of this type can cause disruption and inconvenience to those nearby; particularly in respect of noise, vibration and dust. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the methods set out in the CTMP, combined with other legislative requirements, would be sufficient to prevent unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents. Furthermore, harm of this kind would be for short time, limited only to the construction period. 19. Additionally, the Council’s SPD requires the basement contractor responsible for the development to sign up to the considerate contractors scheme in the interests of protecting the amenity of those nearby. In accordance with the SPD and in order to mitigate the impact of construction work upon the levels of amenity that neighbouring occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy I have imposed this condition. 20. Whilst concerns regarding the impact of the construction of the stability of nearby properties have been raised, a Basement Impact Assessment (construction method statement) signed off by a Chartered Structural Engineer was submitted and the Council were of the view that it satisfactorily demonstrates that the structural stability of existing and nearby buildings would be safeguarded. I have no reason to disagree with this view. I have also imposed a condition requiring construction to be supervised by a Chartered Engineer in the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents. In any event, such matters are also covered by other legislation. 21. For these reasons I conclude that the construction of the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents. The proposal would therefore comply with policy CL7 of the LP and the SPD in respect of their aims to ensure that construction impacts such as noise, vibration and dust are kept to acceptable levels for the duration of the works and that works are designed to safeguard the structural stability of the existing and nearby buildings. Conditions 22. In addition to the standard commencement condition and the conditions explored above, one that requires the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition which requires the external surfaces to match those of the existing building is necessary in order to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the proposed development. Conditions requiring the roof slopes to be constructed Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/17/3174514 5 in natural slate and securing details regarding the external windows, including the dormer windows, and doors are needed for the same reason. Conclusion 23. Having regard to my conclusions on the main issues and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions. L J O’Brien APPOINTED PERSON