`Add an additional/continue mansard on the roof terrace to the top rear closet wing (outrigger) of the building. To form additional bathroom space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 September 2017 by C J Ford BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI a person appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/X5990/D/17/3174631 85 Cambridge Street, London SW1V 4PY  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 Kevin Parry against the decision of City of Westminster Council.  The application Ref 16/11714/FULL, dated 11 December 2016, was refused by notice dated 6 February 2017.  The development proposed is described as `Add an additional/continue mansard on the roof terrace to the top rear closet wing (outrigger) of the building. To form additional bathroom space’. 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 Pimlico Conservation Area. Reasons 3. As the appeal site is located within a Conservation Area (CA), it is necessary to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also sets out that Conservation Areas are designated heritage assets and that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 4. The character of the Pimlico CA is strongly defined by its formal grid street pattern with classically designed terraces. The appeal site reflects this development form and is an end of terrace house that occupies a prominent corner plot position alongside the crossroads of Cambridge Street and Clarendon Street. 5. The property has a rear closet wing which steps down in height from the mansard roof located above the main part of the house. A step down of the rear wing and its resulting subservience to the height of the main part of the house is common to the built form of the other corner properties alongside the crossroads. The feature is therefore an important part of the existing character of both the building and the immediate locality. Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/17/3174631 2 6. The flat roof of the rear wing is currently used as a roof terrace and has perimeter metal railings. The high level railings are not a typical feature of the rear wings to the corner buildings and consequently the railings appear incongruous. 7. The proposal would extend the mansard roof across the roof terrace whilst retaining the metal railings. There would also be a `pod’ rising above the roof that would span the intersection between the new and old elements in order to accommodate the necessary headroom for the stairs to the extension. 8. The metal railings would not fully conceal the extension and the additional bulk would be visible from street level. The combination of the additional bulk and the railings would exacerbate the existing incongruous appearance of the roof level to the rear wing. 9. The departure from the characteristic built form would be further emphasised by the prominence and peculiarity of the pod. Critically, the development would result in the loss of the important step down and subservience of the rear wing to the main part of the building. As a result of these outcomes, the proposal would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the building and the wider area. The appellant’s suggested acceptance of a condition requiring the removal of the railings would fail to adequately mitigate the identified harm. 10. The appellant has drawn attention to a number of other properties in the CA where the former space above the rear closet wing has been infilled with a brick addition or there has been a mansard roof extension. Whilst this includes some applications that were approved as recently as June 2016, the full background details to those developments has not been provided and it is not clear whether they were considered against the present extant planning policy framework, as must apply in this case. Moreover, the properties do not have a direct influence on the visual appearance of this particular part of the Cambridge Street and Clarendon Street junction street scene. 11. The appeal proposal has been considered on its own merits having regard to the specific circumstances of the site and its surroundings. It is established above that the proposal would bring into effect a harmful departure from the characteristic built form of the house and the immediate locality. 12. Paragraph 134 of the Framework sets out that where a development leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, as applies in this case, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development. A benefit of the proposed scheme, albeit not a public one, would be the provision of an additional bathroom to serve the two top floor bedrooms. There would also be investment in the fabric and condition of the building. Nevertheless, it is considered that these benefits do not outweigh the identified harm. 13. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the Pimlico CA. It would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The scheme would conflict with Policies S25 and S28 of Westminster’s City Plan November 2016 and Policies DES1, DES5, DES6 and DES9 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan January 2007. Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that extensions are in scale with the existing building and its Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/17/3174631 3 immediate surroundings and exemplary design reflects the style and details of the existing building. They likewise seek to resist extensions that would adversely affect the architectural character or unity of a building or group of buildings and where the extension would be visually intrusive or unsightly. Furthermore, they seek to ensure that Westminster’s heritage assets are conserved. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. C J Ford APPOINTED PERSON