Construction of ground and first floor rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2018 by Helen Cassini BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th March 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/17/3188280 76 St Johns Park, Blackheath SE3 7JP  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 Giulio Bognolo against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich Council.  The application Ref:17/1620/F, dated 19 May 2015, was refused by notice dated 10 August 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of ground and first floor rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The description of the proposal has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it provides a full and accurate description of the development. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 78 St Johns Park, with particular regard to loss of daylight and sense of enclosure; and ii) whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Blackheath Conservation Area. Reasons Living conditions 4. The appeal site, and the neighbouring dwelling at 78 St Johns Park, form a pair of 2-storey semi-detached dwellings. As a consequence of the location of the proposed first floor rear extension, it is not considered that this aspect would have a significant impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No 78. Turning to the proposed single storey rear extension, this would provide a relatively large amount of additional floor space. However, it would also have a greater depth than the neighbouring dwelling at No 78. 5. A narrow infill area exists on either side of the shared boundary between the host dwelling and No 78. The shared boundary consists of a brick wall and wooden fencing. The height of the brick wall ranges from approximately 2 to 3 Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3188280 2 metres. As a consequence of the height of the boundary wall, the 2-storey design of the dwellings and the relatively narrow passageway, a reduced level of light will already be experienced in regard of the ground floor French doors to both dwellings. As such, it is acknowledged that a sense of enclosure already exists in regard of both the host dwelling and No 78. 6. The proposed extension would infill the gap between the existing rear projection and the boundary with No 78, extending along the shared boundary. As no windows are proposed on this elevation, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the privacy of No 78. 7. However, No 78 has not been extended and its side return area is, therefore, open. The French doors on the main rear elevation and the two ground floor windows on the side elevation of the outrigger at No 78 would face towards the proposed infill extension. All of these windows appear to serve habitable rooms and none of the windows are obscure glazed. 8. Although single storey, the proposed infill extension would be significantly higher than the proposed new brick boundary wall. It is recognised that the proposed height of the new shared boundary wall would not extend above the mid line of the windows in the side elevation of No 78. However, the proposal would result in the occupiers being faced with a blank brick wall and views of the infill extension, in close proximity to their window. 9. The infill extension would also create a ‘tunnel effect’ by enclosing the space and reducing the outlook from the ground floor window on the main rear elevation. Consequently, the proposal would significantly reduce the level of daylight and sunlight experienced and would have an oppressive, enclosing effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 78. 10. From the appellant’s submitted evidence, it is recognised that the neighbour at No 78 has submitted a planning application for a broadly similar scheme1. If the extension at No 78 was in-situ, the impact of the appeal proposal would be much reduced in regard of loss of light and sense of enclosure. 11. If planning permission is granted for the proposal at No 78, it is acknowledged that it may be the intention of the occupiers to construct the extension. However, in reality this does not always occur or it may be that the construction of the extension next to the appeal site may not be undertaken for some time. 12. Whilst I have sympathy for the appellant in terms of his position, the adverse impact and identified harm would be a reality in the intervening period prior to determination of the planning application submitted by the occupiers at No 78. 13. It therefore follows the proposal fails to comply with Policy 7.6 of The London Plan 2016 (TLP), Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan; Core Strategy with Detailed Policies 2014 (the CS) and guidance contained within the Royal Borough of Greenwich Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversion Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2016 (the SPD). When taken together these policies and guidance seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development does not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers. 1 Council reference PP-06059262 Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3188280 3 Conservation area 14. The appeal site is located within the Blackheath Conservation Area (the Conservation Area). The Conservation Area is a designated heritage asset, which derives considerable significance from the architectural quality and diversity of housing within it and the harmonious relationship between dwellings and landscape which exists within its streets. The appeal site forms part of an attractive row of Victorian properties and it is the dwelling’s substantial scale, appearance and materials which make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. 15. Given the location within the Conservation Area, in accordance with section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, there is a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. This is also reflected in the approach set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 16. The concern of both the Council and the Blackheath Society in regard of the width of the ground floor extension is noted. Whilst the width would expand across the whole of the host dwelling, the depth would mirror that of the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling at No 74. Furthermore, at height of approximately 2.88 metres to the eaves, it is not considered that the ground floor extension would result in a bulky, overly dominant addition to the rear of the dwelling. 17. The proposed roof design would be modern in design. However, the use of more contemporary design features and materials are not uncommon within urban settings. Furthermore, modern or contemporary architecture is not ruled out by the Framework; with paragraph 60 stating that both planning policy and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and that they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or style. 18. Paragraph 60 of the Framework further states that it is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. It is considered that due to the proposed use of a light render, the contrast between old and new materials would distinguish the extension from the host dwelling. Consequently, the proposed use of a relatively modern, understated design would ensure that the traditional architecture and historic charm of the host dwelling remains a principal focus. The ground floor extension would therefore adequately reinforce and complement the positive contribution the host dwelling makes to the immediate locality. 19. Turning to the proposed first floor extension, from observations made during the site visit, this aspect of the proposal would extend beyond the established building line of the neighbouring dwellings at Nos 76 to 88. However, dwellings from Nos 60 to 74 appear to have extended building lines at the first floor. As such, it is not considered that the proposed first floor extension would represent an incongruous addition in terms of either the host dwelling or within the wider setting of the Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3188280 4 20. This leads me to consider that the proposed ground floor and first floor extension would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Having given considerable importance and weight, and paid special attention, to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area it is considered that all aspects of the proposal would preserve these attributes and hence the significance of the heritage asset. 21. The proposal would therefore pass the statutory test and would accord with the local character, architecture and heritage requirements of Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of TLP. Furthermore, as the ground floor and first floor rear extensions would respect the scale and character of the host dwelling and would not be not be visible from the public highway and the roof extension would respect the scale and character of the host building, the street scene and the surrounding area, the development would also accord with Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the CS. The proposed development would also comply with the Framework in relation to good design and preserving the historic environment. Conclusion 22. Despite finding no harm with regard to the Conservation Area, the harm identified in regard of the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 78 is decisive. 23. For the reasons stated above, and taking all other matters raised into consideration, the appeal should be dismissed. Helen Cassini INSPECTOR