Renovation and reconfiguration of existing property to include extension to rear ground and first floor. Loft conversion with dormers. Updating and replacement of existing windows to entire property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 October 2020 by Simon Warder MA BSc(Hons) DipUD(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 November 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/20/3254256 17 Brookway, Blackheath SE3 9BJ • 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 Iain Urquhart against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich • The application Ref 20/0240/HD, dated 26 January 2020, was refused by notice dated 4 June 2020. • The development proposed is the renovation and reconfiguration of existing property to include extension to rear ground and first floor. Loft conversion with dormers. Updating and replacement of existing windows to entire property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal proposal includes a single storey rear extension, a two-storey rear extension and new rooflights in the main roof of the property. However, the Council’s concerns are limited to the effects of the proposed side and rear dormers. There is some uncertainty regarding the possible replacement of the plain tile hanging on the front elevation with ‘fish scale’ pattern tiles. The Council considers that this matter could be controlled by condition. I see no reason to disagree and have framed the main issue accordingly. 3. Revised plans were submitted to the Council prior to the determination of the application. The appellant understood that they would be taken into account when the Council’s decision was made. However, the Council has confirmed that its decision was based on the plans originally submitted. The revised plans largely correct discrepancies in the depiction of the main roof of the appeal property and the omission of a proposed dormer in one side elevation. However, they do not materially alter the elements of the proposal which have been determinative in my decision. As such, even if the Council’s decision had been based on the revised plans, it would not have changed the outcome of the appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effects of the proposed side and rear dormers on the character and appearance of the host building and the Blackheath Park Conservation Area (CA). Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/20/3254256 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property is a substantial detached two storey dwelling within the Cator Estate South part of the CA. It was one of the later areas of the CA to be developed and dates from the 1930’s. The architecture of the properties in Brookway is typical of that period. Good quality detailing in a traditional domestic style combine with well proportioned built forms with most properties featuring hipped roofs and generous eaves overhangs. A mix of plain tiled roofs, plain tile hanging, brick and render together with subtle variations between buildings and generous planting give the street scene a coherent and attractive character. Notwithstanding the differences between this part of the designated area and the parts of the CA which were developed earlier, the road contributes positively to the significance of the heritage asset. The appeal property, whilst previously extended, largely retains its original character and appearance and, therefore, plays its part in that contribution. 6. The appeal property sits at a shallow bend in the road which increases its prominence in street views. In particular, its western side elevation is more exposed and oblique views towards the rear of the property are available. Whilst the property backs onto the later ‘Span’ housing in Foxes Dale, its primary relationship is with the other 1930’s housing and the street scene of Brookway. 7. The proposed side dormer would be on the east elevation. Nevertheless, it would be clearly visible in views from the street, notwithstanding the presence of a fairly substantial tree in the front garden of the neighbouring property. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant has control over any lopping or reduction of the tree in the future. The side dormer would have an ‘up and over’ rooflight with tiled, upstand walls on each side. From most directions this would give it the appearance of having a flat roof and blank walls. Furthermore, the scale of the dormer would be large in relation to the main roof slope. There would be only a narrow strip of tiling in the main roof slope below the dormer and the top of its front wall would be very close to the hip at the front of the main roof. This would create an awkward relationship with the characteristic form of the existing roof at a prominent position. The side dormer would, therefore, be disproportionate in size and inappropriate in its form and siting. 8. Two flat roofed dormers are proposed in the rear main roof slope. Although they would be set somewhat higher up the roof than the side dormer, together, they would take up a large proportion of the slope. The windows in the dormers would be larger than those at first floor level in the rear elevation. As such, the rear dormers would be disproportionate in size and dominate the rear roof of the building. Given the siting of the appeal property, the rear dormers would be visible in oblique views from the street, as well as the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. 9. The appellant has referred to other properties in the area where front or side dormers have been added. In most cases those dormers have a more traditional pitched roof form which helps to assimilate them with the existing building. Most are also less dominant of their host roof slopes than the appeal dormers. The small number which fall into neither category do little to conserve the character and appearance of the CA and do not provide a robust justification for the appeal dormers. Furthermore, the examples cited are Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/20/3254256 3 spread over a fairly wide area. Most properties in the area do not have such dormers and they are not characteristic of the area. The appellant has also referred to an example of an ‘up and over’ dormer designed by Darren Oldfield architects. Although this form of dormer would limit overlooking, for the reasons set out above, the scale and position of the proposed side dormer would be unacceptable in this case. 10. Consequently, I consider that the proposed side and rear dormers would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the CA. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy 7.4 of the London Plan (2016) (LP) and Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) (CS) which require development to achieve a high quality of design that responds to its surroundings in its scale and proportion. It would also conflict with LP Policy 7.8 and CS Policies DH3 and DH(h) which require proposals to conserve the significance of heritage assets by being sympathetic to their form, scale and architectural detail. 11. Nor would the proposal accord with CS Policy DH(a) as supplemented by the advice in the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basement and Conversions SPD (2018). Amongst other things, the policy requires roof extensions to respect the scale and character of the host building and be proportionate to the size of the original house. 12. The proposal would not accord with National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) paragraphs 192 and 193 which require the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets to be taken into account and great weight to be attached to their conservation. 13. The harm to the CA would be less than substantial and Framework paragraph 196 requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant states that the proposed dormers should be viewed holistically as part of the refurbishment of the appeal property. Whilst the proposal as a whole would increase the amount of living space, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the property currently provides unsatisfactory living conditions. The appellant’s wish to provide additional living space at the property does not amount to a public benefit. I have not been made aware of any other public benefits which would outweigh the harm to the heritage asset. 14. It follows that the proposal would not accord with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Other Matters 15. The appellant has referred to the pre-application advice it received from the Council and the length of time taken to determine the application. However, my decision is based on the Council’s formal decision and the planning merits of the appeal proposal. 16. I have had regard to the other concerns expressed locally, but they have not led me to a different overall conclusion. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/20/3254256 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed. Simon Warder INSPECTOR