Erection of single storey side/front infill extension at second floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 April 2018 by Rory MacLeod BA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X5990/D/18/3193343 8 Monmouth Road, London W2 5SB  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 Charles Payne against the decision of City of Westminster Council.  The application Ref 17/07597/FULL, dated 24 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 October 2017.  The development proposed is erection of single storey side/front infill extension at second floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have taken the description from the Council’s decision notice as this more accurately reflects the proposal than the description on the application form and the appellant does not object to this description. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area including on the character and appearance of the Westbourne Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached 3-storey dwelling with a hipped roof. At the time of my site visit, it was undergoing extensive refurbishment work. The property has been previously extended in the past including by the addition of a two storey side extension with a first floor front wall flush with that of the original dwelling and by a second floor side extension set well back from the frontage but with a chamfered front wall that is nonetheless visible from the street. The attached dwelling, 6 Monmouth Road, has a side wing but this is set back substantially from the frontage so that its original front profile under the hipped roof remains intact. 5. The pair is located within the Westbourne Conservation Area which comprises of semi-detached villas and terraces of varying scale and detailing. The site is within a short section of Monmouth Road between Westbourne Grove and Newton Road. It is part of a row of semi-detached dwellings most of which have undergone significant alteration, but there are higher buildings nearby. Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/18/3193343 2 6. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on decision takers with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. 7. The proposed infill extension at second floor level would be flush with the main front wall of the house and have a flat roof tucking under the eaves to the hipped roof over the original dwelling. Whilst it would hide the present chamfered wall at second floor level, it would result in a bulky addition that would be prominent in the street scene. The additional width at second floor level would affect the proportions of the dwelling in relation to the roof and would detract from the appearance of the building itself and from the pair of semi-detached dwellings. 8. In this respect I concur with the findings of the Inspector who determined an appeal in 2017 for a similar infill extension at second floor level at the appeal site1. She commented, “While No 8 has been extended to the side and in line with the front elevation, I consider that a further extension at second floor level would form a prominent and dominant addition which would further unbalance the semi-detached pair to a harmful degree”. That proposal differed from the current proposal in that it would have been set back from the front wall and would have had a parapet wall to the flat roof. The changes made to the current proposal do not overcome the harm identified in relation to the previous appeal. Indeed the forward siting of the extension to be flush with the main front wall would mean that the original form and profile of the dwelling below eaves level would be lost. 9. Notwithstanding the previous alterations to the appeal dwelling, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area in relation to its design and context. The proposal would detract from the rhythm of building blocks and spaces along this stretch of Monmouth Road. It would thereby result in harm to the locality and would not satisfy the duty to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. 10. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policy S25 of the Westminster City Plan (2016) (WCP) and policy DES 9 of the City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan (2007) (UDP) that seek to conserve the historic environment and promote extensions that preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservations areas. The proposal would also be contrary to policy S28 of the WCP in relation to promoting exemplary standards of design and with policy DES 1 of the UDP that requires development to respect and, where necessary, maintain the character, urban grain, scale and hierarchy of existing buildings and the spaces between them. There would also be conflict with policy DES 5 of the UDP that requires extensions to not visually dominate the existing building but to be in scale with its immediate surroundings. 11. My attention has been drawn to other properties, particularly in the adjacent Newton Road, in which there have been extensions bearing some similarity to the appeal proposal. I viewed these at my site visit and noticed several second floor flat roofed extensions. The Council comments that many of these extensions are historic and not subject to recent permissions. The Council also refers to particular circumstances justifying the erection of the new dwelling at 1 APP/X5990/D/17/3183474 Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/18/3193343 3 28 Monmouth Road. The appellant has made reference to a recent permission for a similar extension at 25 Newton Road. The second floor extension here balances that to no.23 with which the property is paired and abuts a similar extension to the adjacent building at 27 Newton Road. The site circumstances therefore are different to those at the appeal site and this recent addition does not set a precedent for the appeal proposal. The other cases cited do not provide a justification for the appeal proposal or the resultant harm to the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. 12. Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Having regard to previous alterations to the appeal property and neighbouring buildings, the resultant harm to the conservation area would be less than substantial. The extension would provide an en-suite bathroom for an adjacent bedroom; this would be a private benefit. The appellant suggests that there would be a public gain in terms of an improved visual aspect to the facade of the subject property, but my findings are that the facade changes would be harmful to the appearance of the property and surrounding area. There would not be any public benefits that would offset this harm. 13. I note that there have been no objections to the proposal from neighbours or from amenity groups, but I have nonetheless found that harm would arise from the proposal. 14. In relation to the specific circumstances at the appeal site, which set it apart from extensions to other buildings nearby, the development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area including on the character and appearance of the Westbourne Conservation Area. Other Matters 15. The appellant has raised concern about the Council’s handling of the application and in particular to a lack of dialogue. This is a matter between the parties concerned and has had no bearing on my determination of the appeal. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Rory MacLeod INSPECTOR