Single storey side extension and rear pagoda with clear polycarbonate roof panels

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 March 2021 by Conor Rafferty LLB (Hons), AIEMA, Solicitor Decision by R C Kirby BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D5120/D/21/3267593 Glendalough, The Green, Sidcup DA14 6BS • 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 Mrs Mehmet against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bexley. • The application Ref 20/01323/FUL, dated 9 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 17 November 2020. • The development proposed is described as ‘single storey side extension and rear pagoda with clear polycarbonate roof panels’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council’s decision notice refers only to the proposed rear pagoda. Accordingly, this recommendation also relates only to that element of the proposal. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of The Green Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling within The Green Conservation Area (CA). The special architectural and historic interest of the CA is derived from the presence of listed buildings, open spaces and a core of Victorian and Edwardian houses. The immediate area is primarily residential and also contains The Green open space. As per the CA Appraisal it is defined by a well detailed sequence of houses, private gardens, landscaping, trees, and views and spaces between buildings. 6. Development has resulted in dwellings from different periods, but the appeal site marks the transition into a group of traditional properties with attractive Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/21/3267593 2 scale, proportions and architectural detail as mentioned in the CA Appraisal. Accordingly, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. 7. The proposed pergola, whilst being a lightweight structure, would rise above the boundary wall and new side projection. It would erode the space between the property and its neighbour and would therefore appear as a dominant feature, failing to respect the proportions of the dwelling and its environs. 8. Moreover, the large polycarbonate roof would appear modern and visually intrusive against the host dwelling and would fail to harmonise with it, appearing out of place and harmful, altering the traditional character and appearance of it. While views of the pagoda from The Green would be limited and largely screened from the road by trees, from the rear this visual clash would be apparent. Here the pagoda would be viewed in the context of neighbouring development. Looking eastwards it would be experienced against the rear sequence of traditional houses and would be an incongruous feature in this context. Therefore, although it would be located in, and primarily viewed from, the enclosed rear garden with limited views from neighbouring gardens, the pagoda would not be sensitive to the design, materials and character of the property or surrounds. 9. As a result of the proposal the current traditional appearance of the building and area would be eroded. The character of the site and immediate section of the CA would not be preserved or enhanced. Accordingly, the proposal would cause visual harm to the CA and its significance as a designated heritage asset. However, given the localised effect on the character and appearance of the CA, I find that this would equate to ‘less than substantial’ harm for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 10. Paragraph 196 of the Framework specifies that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant has stated that the proposal would not lead to a loss of parking and would complement the amenity of the rear garden. Whilst I have no reason to disagree with the appellant in this regard, such benefits would be largely private. They do not amount to public benefits which outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset. A matter to which I give great weight. 11. For all of these reasons I find that the proposed pagoda would have a significantly adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Policies H9, ENV39 and ENV46 of the Bexley Council Unitary Development Plan, adopted 28 April 2004; Policy CS01 of the Local Development Framework Development Plan Document Bexley Core Strategy, adopted 22 February 2012; the Design Guidelines and the National Planning Policy Framework, which together seek to promote good design and preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The proposal would also conflict with the statutory test relating to conservation areas. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. Having had regard to all matters raised, I find that there are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/21/3267593 3 accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. C Rafferty APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report, and, on that basis, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. R C Kirby INSPECTOR