Creation of a double storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and the partial re-arrangement of all floors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2017 by O Blower MA (T&CP) a person appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/17/3178167 13 Brookway, Blackheath SE3 9BJ  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 Evans against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich Council.  The application Ref 17/0266/F, dated 25 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 March 2017.  The development proposed is the creation of a double storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and the partial re-arrangement of all floors. 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 building and immediate area and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blackheath Park Conservation Area. Reasons 3. There is a statutory duty1 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area and I must consider the effect of the proposed development from that perspective. 4. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) defines a conservation area as a ‘heritage asset’, and seeks to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance2. I must therefore assess the significance of the conservation area in those terms, and come to a view on whether the development would cause ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’ harm. 5. The Blackheath Park Conservation Area (CA) consists of a mixture of detached and largely symmetrical semi-detached dwellings of complementary design 1 This requirement is set down in section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and is always a material consideration when dealing with appeals in conservation areas. 2 The Framework makes it clear that decision-makers should identify and assess the significance of any heritage asset and the impact of a proposal on the significance of the asset. When considering the impact of a development on significance, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3178167 2 with generously sized front gardens and mature planting. These features give the CA a traditional, harmonious, open and verdant character and appearance. The appeal relates to a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped crown roof and front bay projection. The symmetry of the semi-detached pair creates a pleasing uniformity which reinforces the cohesive appearance of these two houses. In turn the semi-detached houses make a positive contribution to the significance of the heritage asset because they preserve its character and appearance, notwithstanding that the buildings are of relatively new construction. 6. The proposal seeks, in part, the erection of a two-storey side extension. The front of the side extension would broadly align with the main façade of the host building, albeit set back from the projecting bay. Due to its height and alignment, the extension would appear as a continuation of the main body of the house rather than as a subordinate addition set back from the primary elevation. This would be emphasised in particular by the excessive height, width and bulk of the roof, which would be only very moderately lower than the main roof and far in excess of the height of the front bay. The side extension would therefore not appear secondary to the original building but rather lead to the whole house appearing unusually wide and bulky, severely unbalancing the characteristic symmetry of the semi-detached pair. 7. As a result I conclude that the two-storey side extension, due to its alignment and excessive height, would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host building and immediate area and, thus, would not preserve or enhance the CA. It is therefore contrary to policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016) which seek to ensure, amongst other things, high quality design that is appropriate to its context and conserves the significance of heritage assets. 8. It is also contrary to policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Core Strategy which seek to ensure, amongst other things, high quality design that provides a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context; the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas; and that side additions should be limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality. 9. It is also contrary to the Councils Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Supplementary Planning Document 2016 (SPD), which advises that a side extension should normally be set back slightly from the front wall of the house to allow the original house to remain prominent. I note that the SPD also advises that the ridge height of the roof of a side extension should be set below the existing ridge height to ensure the extension is secondary to the original house. Although I acknowledge that the extension would be very slightly lower than original roof, in my view the drop would not be sufficient for the extension to appear secondary to the original house for the reasons above. 10. The finding of harm must carry considerable importance and weight. I am satisfied that the harm caused by the development to the heritage asset is less than substantial, because the development concerned is small scale, but nevertheless permission should only be granted if public benefits would outweigh the harm as detailed in the Framework. 11. The development would benefit the appellant through the provision of additional floor space. This, however, cannot amount to a public benefit of the Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3178167 3 scheme or outweigh the harm caused by the development to the character and appearance of the CA. 12. Reference has been made to pervious grants of planning permission for two-storey side extensions at other nearby houses. In these examples, however, the extensions are significantly lower than the roof of the original house, so that the extensions appear subordinate. Thus they are not directly comparable to the proposed development. 13. The proposal also includes a single-storey rear extension and internal alterations. The Council has not objected to these elements of the scheme and from my own observations I see no reason to disagree. Nonetheless, the acceptable elements do not outweigh the harm cause by the two-storey side extension for the reasons given above. Consequently, having had regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal. O. Blower Appointed Person