Raising the roof level to provide additional living accommodation within roof space and provision of new balconies to front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J3530/D/17/3189778 Pembroke, 56 Crag Path, Aldeburgh IP15 5BT  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 Ms Anna Canty of Chapeltown Ltd Partnership against the decision of Suffolk Coastal District Council.  The application Ref DC/17/3915/FUL, dated 11 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 October 2017.  The development proposed is raising the roof level to provide additional living accommodation within roof space and provision of new balconies to front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in the appeal are the effects of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) the living conditions of adjacent occupants. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. Crag Path runs parallel to the beach and has mostly 19th century buildings along its western frontage, generally of two to four storeys. The appeal building is of two storeys and within a frontage of buildings of similar height. A three storey terrace is adjacent and separated from the appeal property by a footpath. The site is within the Aldeburgh Conservation Area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 4. The existing building is of modest proportions with a symmetrical architectural composition. It is not specifically mentioned in the Conservation Area Appraisal1 but it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area particularly in view of its prominent location. The design of the proposal would be respectful of the architectural symmetry and detailing but would substantially change the appearance of the building. Its existing modest scale and the simplicity of its design would be overwhelmed. 1 Aldeburgh Conservation Area Appraisal December 2013 Appeal Decision APP/J3530/D/17/3189778 2 5. A similar proposal to raise the roof of the adjacent building (Magenta) is also subject to a concurrent appeal2. If the two were developed together their resulting roof lines would be of similar height and would not exceed the heights of the adjacent buildings. Considered in the context of the frontage generally the proposal would not be out of scale but this does not alleviate my concern. Policy DM21 of the Development Plan Document (DPD)3 requires extensions to be visually recessive in sensitive locations such as this. For the reasons given the proposal would not accord with that policy. 6. I take into account the variations in building designs along Crag Path but this does not overcome the harm that I have identified. I note that there have been a number of roof alterations in the area but none are directly comparable to the proposal. In particular the modern box-like extension on the roof of a Victorian building referred to by the appellant covers only part of its roof and its scale in relation to the host building is much less than that of the appeal proposal. 7. For the above reasons I find that the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The harm to the Conservation Area would be less than substantial taking into account the limited scale of the proposal in relation to adjacent buildings. 8. An adjoining building at the rear (14 King Street) is listed at grade II. The proposed extension would be visible from the path to the side of the site in conjunction with the listed building but not from King Street. The increased height would also be apparent from the rear of the listed building. The proposal would not however have a dominant effect on the setting of the listed building and for this reason there would be no harm to that heritage asset. This did not form part of the reason for refusal. 9. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework I must weigh the less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area against the public benefits of the proposal. The building is in use as self-catering holiday accommodation and the proposal by improving that accommodation would support tourism. It could result in increased tourist expenditure thereby strengthening the local economy. I give great weight to the conservation of the heritage asset however. I do not find the benefit to be of such weight that it would outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area that I have identified. 10. Conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB must also be given great weight. Because the site is contained within an established built frontage of the town the proposal would have little effect on landscape and scenic beauty. This did not form part of the reason for refusal. However for the reasons given I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Living Conditions 11. To the rear of the site there are two dwellings that are in very close proximity. Those dwellings have a number of rear windows at ground and first floor levels which face a quite confined space at the rear. There is a small courtyard which is used by the occupants of 14 King Street. Because the space is limited and enclosed by buildings it is already significantly overshadowed. 2 APP/J3530/D/17/3189774 3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan Core Strategy & Development Management Policies (2013) Appeal Decision APP/J3530/D/17/3189778 3 12. The appellant’s Daylight/Sunlight report analyses the effect of the proposal in combination with the proposed extension to the adjacent building. The ground floor rear windows and most of the first floor windows of the adjacent properties already receive substantially less than the recommended standard for a good level of daylight4. The proposals would result in a reduction in daylight in the case of a ground floor rear window to № 14 which would only be slightly below the recommended standard but nonetheless adverse.5 13. The assessment of sunlight produces a similar result with respect to that window and in addition a dormer window on the rear roof slope of № 16 would be marginally below the recommended value in this respect. The appellant has clarified that there would be no adverse impact on the roof light to the rear of № 16. There would be no material reduction in sunlight to the external areas at the rear. 14. It may be that the proposal in isolation would have less effect on sunlight and daylight but this has not been demonstrated. Given that the adjacent windows already receive much less than the minimum recommended level of daylight I am concerned that any reduction, however slight would be detrimental. 15. In addition to this the proposal would increase the sense of enclosure of the spaces at the rear, resulting in the outlook from the rear windows of the adjacent dwellings becoming more oppressive. Taken together these effects would unacceptably harm the living conditions of adjacent occupants. For these reasons the proposal would not accord with policy DM23 of the DPD which requires that there is no unacceptable loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR 4 BRE Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice 2nd edition – 27% or more vertical sky component 5 0.77 of its former vertical sky component value against the recommendation of 0.8