Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 January 2019 by Michael Simmons BSc(Hons) DipTP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/18/3208565 26, St. Marys Avenue South, Southall, UB2 4LS • 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 Manmohan Singh & Davinder Kaur Arora against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref 182743HH, dated 7 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 August 2018. • The development proposed is described as ‘loft conversion’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The proposal is described as a loft conversion in the application form but it would involve the construction of an additional floor and therefore I have considered the proposal on this basis. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 24 St. Marys Avenue South. • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Norwood Green Conservation Area. Reasons Living Conditions of No 24 St. Marys Avenue South 4. No 24 is a detached 2-storey property set forward of No 26. As a consequence, the rear elevation of No 26 extends much further into its rear garden compared to the 2-storey rear elevation at No 24. No 24 also has a single storey extension and a covered outside space that is approximately level with the existing rear elevation of No 26. 5. The proposed development would result in the single storey side elevation of the existing property at No 26 being replaced with a 2-storey elevation. This would extend significantly to the rear of the 2-storey element at No 24 and would be close to the boundary. As a result, there would be an increased sense Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/18/3208565 2 of enclosure and an overbearing impact upon the occupants of this property, particularly from first floor windows but also, albeit to a lesser degree, from its ground floor. The scale of this impact would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 24. 6. For these reasons, the development would be contrary to policy 7.6 of The London Plan (March 2016) and policy 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (Adopted 10 December 2013) that are in general conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019). Character and Appearance 7. No 26 is a detached bungalow located towards the end of a cul-de-sac. It is discretely positioned between a bungalow and a two-storey house. The character of St. Marys Avenue South at this location primarily comprises modern housing development of a reasonably consistent scale, being 2-storey properties with only a limited number of single storey properties. Consequently, the appeal property, in its extended form would not appear as a strident addition to the street scene even though the scale and proportions of the original bungalow would be largely lost. 8. Within the immediate environs of the appeal site along St. Marys Avenue South, many of the special qualities described in the Norwood Green Conservation Area Appraisal (March 2007) that are found elsewhere within the Conservation Area are not present. The development would result in a 2-storey property in place of the existing single storey property that would be on a similar footprint. The development would respect the scale of development that generally prevails in the cul-de-sac. 9. In terms of detailed design, the single storey flat roofed element at the front of the building would be subservient in height to the rest of the property and it would help to break-up the front elevation. As such, it would have a neutral effect on the appeal building, the street scene and the wider Conservation Area. The proposed relationship between the single storey and 2-storey elements at the rear would also complement the form, scale and detailed design of the dwelling as extended and would therefore, be similarly acceptable in respect of its impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The sides of the extended building, whilst of limited articulation, would for the most part be concealed. 10. I thus conclude that the development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality including the Conservation Area. The proposal is consistent with Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of The London Plan (March 2016) and polices 7.4, 7B and 7C of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (Adopted 10 December 2013) because the development’s design is respectful of the local character of the area including the historic environment and would be of an appropriate design. These policies are in general conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019). Whilst the reason for refusal cites conflict with policy 7.5 of The London Plan (March 2016), I consider that not to be the case because this addresses matters relating to the public realm. Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/18/3208565 3 11. Given my conclusion on this issue I consider there to be no conflict with the thrust of the guidance contained within the Council’s Residential Extensions SPD4. Other Matters 12. Various concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding potential impacts on biodiversity and trees, which I have noted. However, given my findings above it has not been necessary for me to address these matters further as the appeal has failed on one of the main issues. Conclusion 13. The proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area but this would be outweighed by the significant harm that would occur to the living conditions of neighbours. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. MA Simmons INSPECTOR