Erection of a single storey, full width rear extension with 4 x rooflights, following demolition of existing part-width extension; insertion of 2 x rooflights to rear main roof slope; insertion of door and Juliet balcony within first floor bay window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 January 2018 by John Dowsett MA DipURP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 5th February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X5210/D/17/3184659 35 Crediton Hill, London NW6 1HS  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 Abrahams against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Camden.  The application Ref: 2017/2619/P, dated 16 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 September 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a single storey, full width rear extension with 4 x rooflights, following demolition of existing part-width extension; insertion of 2 x rooflights to rear main roof slope; insertion of door and Juliet balcony within first floor bay window. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey, full width rear extension with 4 x rooflights, following demolition of existing part-width extension; insertion of 2 x rooflights to rear main roof slope; insertion of door and Juliet balcony within first floor bay window at 35 Crediton Hill, London NW6 1HS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 2017/2619/P, dated 16 January 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; Existing ground floor plan; Existing first floor plan; Existing top floor plan; Existing roof plan; Existing elevations; Existing south elevation; Existing north elevation; Existing section AA; Existing section BB; Proposed ground floor plan; Proposed first floor plan; Proposed top floor plan (Revision A); Proposed roof plan (Revision A); Proposed elevations (Revision A); Proposed south elevation; Proposed north elevation; Proposed section AA (Revision A); and Proposed section BB. 2) 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. Procedural matter 2. The description of the development used by the council on the decision notice more accurately sets out the works proposed and I note that the appellant has also adopted it on the appeal form. I have, therefore, used that for purposes of the appeal. 3. The works have been partially completed and I was able to see these when I visited this site. At the time of my site visit the shell of the ground floor Appeal Decision APP/X5210/D/17/3184659 2 extension had been completed, although not all of the glazing was in place, and internal fitting out was in progress. The proposed “Juliet” balcony to the first floor bay window had not been installed. 4. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act makes allowance for the submission of a planning application for development which has been carried out before the date of the application, and Section 55 of the Act describes development as the carrying out of building operations or the making of material changes of use, as opposed to their retention or continuation. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the West End Green Conservation Area. Reasons 6. The appeal building is a detached two storey dwelling house with rooms in the roof space lit by rear facing dormer windows. It is of traditional construction and has a two storey, half hexagonal, bay window on each of the front and rear elevations. The appeal proposal is for the erection of a ground floor rear extension, the insertion of a door and “Juliet” balcony in the first floor of the rear bay window, and the installation of two rooflights in the rear roof slope. 7. The appeal building is located within the West End Green Conservation Area. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that in making decisions on planning applications and appeals within a Conservation Area, special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area. Paragraph 132 of National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. 8. When read together Policies D1 and D2 of Camden Local Plan 2017 (the Local Plan) expect new development to be of a high quality of design that has regard to its context, preserves or enhances the historic environment and the character and appearance of conservation areas. This is echoed in Policy 2 of The Fortune Green & West Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2015. 9. Policy A1 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the quality of life of occupiers and neighbours by assessment of development proposals against a number of criteria. I note from the Council officers report that the Council consider that the proposed extension would not have an adverse effect of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. From what I have read and from what I saw when I visited the site, I do not consider that the appeal proposal would offend any of the criteria set out in in Local Plan Policy A1. 10. Whilst the Council officer’s report states that the proposed extension would project 5.3 metres from the rear elevation of the building, the submitted drawings are annotated to show a projection of 4 metres. From what I observed when I visited the site, the latter figure is more accurate. Although I saw that the extension crosses the entire width of the rear elevation, the overall height is restricted by the flat roof. Whilst the appeal building is a two storey house, the main roof structure is extensive which increases its perceived height. The original house had a relatively deep plan form and from the submitted drawings the extension would be less than half the depth of the original house. Appeal Decision APP/X5210/D/17/3184659 3 Consequently, the proposed extension would not be disproportionately when large compared to the original house. As the shell of the extension was complete at the time of my site visit I was able to observe it in context and it did not, in my opinion, dominate the rear elevation of the house. 11. The proposed extension would obscure the lower half of the two storey bay window on the rear elevation of the house. During my site visit I saw that many, although by no means all of the houses in this part of the street had similar rear bay windows. I also saw that in the vicinity of the appeal site others of these bays had been truncated at ground floor level by rear extensions, in particular at the neighbouring property at number 33. 12. The West End Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2011 describes the conservation area as a coherent area that was almost all built within 50 years and characterised by quirky, English Domestic architecture. The part of the conservation area where the appeal building is located is strongly influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement, although this is more apparent in the street elevations of the buildings than at the rear. The Character Appraisal does identify that details and features tend to have a distinctive character in buildings originally developed in groups and that the conservation area suffers from erosion of detail in both the commercial and residential properties. Nonetheless, the Character Appraisal makes no particular mention of rear bay windows and does not identify that the rear elevations of the appeal building and its neighbours are of significance to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 13. It is common ground that the proposed extension would not be visible from the public highway. The rear garden areas that form the interior of the perimeter block within which the appeal building is located are also a feature which contributes to the overall character and appearance of the conservation area and I accept that these are overlooked by, and that the proposed extension would be visible from, the rear windows of properties within the mansion blocks located on Honeybourne Road. However, the garden area to the rear of the appeal building is terraced, with the extension set at a lower level that the remainder of the garden and due to the flat roof it would not be unduly visually intrusive or erode the sense of openness that characterises these rear garden areas. From the mansion blocks opposite the extension would be seen at a lower level and in context with other existing extensions to the rear of houses on Crediton Hill. Although I note that the Council state that some of these , particularly that at the neighbouring property at number 33, were built using permitted development rights and are not of a design that the Council would seek to encourage, they are nonetheless part of the existing character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 14. The Conservation Area Character Appraisal notes that within the area balconies are “inventive”, with particularly good examples in Lymington Road and Crediton Hill. I saw when I visited the site that there were a diverse range of balconies on the front elevations of houses in the street. Whilst I was able to see fewer on the rear elevations of properties, the proposed “Juliet” balcony on at first floor level would be a relatively small feature projecting only a minimal distance from the rear elevation of the building. As balconies are recognised as a characteristic feature of the area, it would not appear as an incongruous addition or be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Appeal Decision APP/X5210/D/17/3184659 4 15. Whilst the rooflights in the extension would occupy a substantial proportion of the flat roofed roof area, they would not project significantly above the plane of the roof and any views of them would be extremely limited. I also note that the Council have raised no objection to the rooflights in the rear roof slope. 16. The appellant suggests that an essentially similar extension to that forming the subject of this appeal could be constructed using the permitted development rights set out in Part 1, Class A of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) and that this represents a fallback position. There is no evidence before me that would indicate that there are any restrictions that would preclude the appellant from exercising his permitted development rights under the GPDO. In order for a fallback position to be a material consideration, there must be a greater than theoretical possibility that the development might take place1. As the appellant has already constructed an extension to the rear of the property, albeit acting on advice from the Council that was subsequently withdrawn, I find that it is highly probable that an alternative, yet similar, development would take place. Consequently, there would be a legitimate fallback position. Whilst the fallback position would not have a demonstrably more harmful effect than the appeal proposal, the effect would be to all intents and purposes the same. I attach significant weight to this. 17. Due to the relatively small scale of the proposed extension and its relative lack of visibility, I consider that the overall effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area would be a neutral one. 18. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the West End Green Conservation Area. It would comply with the relevant requirements of Policies D1 and D2 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure that new development is of a high quality of design, which has regard to its context and preserves or enhances the historic environment and the character and appearance of conservation areas. Conditions 19. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. As the works have started is not necessary to attach a condition requiring the commencement of development within 3 years. In order to provide certainly in respect of what has been granted planning permission I have attached a condition specifying the approved drawings. In order to ensure that the extension is in keeping with the original house and others in the surrounding area it is also necessary to attach a condition requiring that it is constructed using materials that match the existing building. Conclusion 20. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. John Dowsett INSPECTOR 1 Raffaele Gambone v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Wolverhampton City Council [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin)