Double storey side and rear extension. Single storey ground floor infill

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/17/3183647 24 Coalecroft Road, London SW15 6LP  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 Stefan Szczurowski against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth.  The application, Ref. 2017/2093, dated 27 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 August 2017.  The development proposed is a double storey side and rear extension. Single storey ground floor infill. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The appellant submitted alternative plans during the Council’s consideration of the appeal application. As the Council has had the opportunity to consider these and they have been in the public domain I consider that I can have regard to them in this appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Coalecroft Road Conservation Area, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions for adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons 4. I saw on my visit that although there are a variety of housing styles and forms in Coalecroft Road, its western side is mostly in the form of pairs of semi- detached houses of modest size and the same traditional design. These are described by the Council as originally being ‘small workers’ cottages’ and as ‘early Victorian farm workers’ cottages’ in the Conservation Area Appraisal. 5. There is a gap between Nos. 24 and 26 at first floor and roof level, which provides pleasing glimpses through to the rear gardens and beyond, and also a more spacious appearance that would have defined the original character of the road. Somewhat regrettably in terms of the qualities that would have led to the road’s status as a designated heritage asset in the form of the Coalecroft Road Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/17/3183647 2 Conservation Area, most of the dwellings have had two-storey extensions to abut their flank boundary with the nearest house of the next pair. 6. This has had the effect of precluding the views between adjoining pairs of dwellings, but a partially redeeming factor is that in most cases the extensions are sited well back from the front elevation. As this position facilitates a perception of the extensions’ subservience to the host dwellings, it enables their architectural and historic quality to be largely retained along with the preservation of a relatively spacious character for this side of the road. 7. However, the appeal scheme would not be in keeping with this pattern. Even with the amended scheme the two-storey side extension would be set back only a modest distance from the front elevation. Moreover, its prominence in views along this particular section of the road would have an adverse effect on both the architectural integrity of the host dwelling and the symmetry and rhythm of the street scene. 8. I acknowledge that Nos. 8 and 10 have had similar two-storey side extensions, especially as regards their relatively forward siting. However, even though these and most of the other side extensions in the road have been constructed since the designation of the conservation area in 1971, they do not affect the requirement for the decision-maker for any new development to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving the character or appearance of the conservation area. 9. Overall, I consider that a two-storey side extension in the position shown would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of both the host building and the street scene. As a result, those same aspects of the conservation area would not be preserved and this would be in harmful conflict with prevailing local and national planning policies. Locally these are Policy IS3 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Core Strategy 2016; Policies DMS2 & DMH5 of the Wandsworth Development Management Policies Document 2016, and the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2016. At the national level there is the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (‘the Framework’). 10. The proposal would amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, and as required in paragraph 134 of the Framework I am required to weigh this harm against any public benefits. However, I do not consider the enlargement and improvement of the living accommodation of the appeal dwelling to comprise a public benefit that would outweigh the harm that I have identified. 11. Turning briefly to the second issue, I consider there is some substance in the Council’s assertion of a loss of light and outlook to No. 22 as a result of the proposed rear extension. However, this matter was not raised with the appellant during discussions on the scheme and the officer’s report does not elaborate as to which rooms of No. 22 would be affected. Bearing in mind my conclusion in respect of the first issue that the appeal should be dismissed, I do not need to regard this issue as being determinative in my Decision. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR