Demolition of the conservatory and rear outhouse and erection of an extension at lower ground floor and ground floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 January 2019 by D Jackman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/X5990/D/18/3209565 20 Wilfred Street, London SW1E 6PL • 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 and Mrs Barber against the decision of the Council of the City of Westminster. • The application Ref 18/04287/FULL, dated 23 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 July 2018. • The development proposed is described as ‘demolition of the conservatory and rear outhouse and erection of an extension at lower ground floor and ground floor’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Birdcage Walk Conservation Area and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to outlook and privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. Much of the Birdcage Walk Conservation Area (CA) consists of small scale stock brick townhouses in Georgian or Queen Anne styles. These have an intimate scale and domestic character. The properties in the road appear to date from the late Georgian period and the early 20th Century. 4. The parties refer to the fact that the appeal site is recorded as an unlisted building of merit in the Conservation Area Audit Birdcage Walk (2008). This designation also applies to nearly all properties in the triangle defined by Wilfred Street, Catherine Place and Buckingham Place. 5. The appeal property is an early 19th Century town house with a small rear garden set within a terrace of generally similar properties. With a simple domestic form, generally solid appearance, and upright proportions, it contributes to the character and appearance of the CA. Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/18/3209565 2 6. The appeal proposal would span almost the full width of the property, cover a significant portion of the rear garden and in part would be two storeys, such that it would dominate the main building. It would include two storeys of differing rearward projection with a balustrade, which together would fail to replicate the simple domestic form of the main dwelling. Generally covering the lower part of the appeal building, it would materially compromise the upright proportions of the host dwelling. The height of the proposed ground floor part of the proposal would be only marginally higher than the maximum height of the existing conservatory, but that has a sloping roof and overall the appeal proposal would be materially higher. The intended use of materials to match the host dwelling and the suggestion that it would not unduly impinge on the historic form of 16-18 Wilfred Street with most of its flank elevation remaining exposed, would not be sufficient to overcome my concerns. 7. The proposal would not be visible from public vantage points. However, due to the height of the nearby buildings, and the limited size of rear gardens, there is considerable inter-visibility between properties. The proposed extension would be visible from many of the windows of neighbouring properties, particularly those opposite on Buckingham Place. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and thereby fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. 8. I have noted the extension at 22 Wilfred Street. However, the circumstances that led to that addition are not before me and its presence does not justify this proposal. 9. I note the conclusions of the Inspector in determining a previous appeal at the appeal site (Ref APP/X5990/D/17/3186048). I appreciate the efforts made to overcome the concerns expressed. However, that was for a materially different scheme. I acknowledge the appellant’s need to accommodate the requirements of modern family living. However, this matter does not overcome the concerns I have expressed. 10. The harm found would be less than substantial. In accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework, such harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The removal of the conservatory and reinstating the floor levels on the rear elevation would be a positive benefit to the character and appearance of the CA. However, having given considerable importance and weight to the special regard I must have to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA1 those benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified. 11. Accordingly, my overall conclusion is that the proposal would harm the significance of the CA and its character and appearance would not be preserved. Thus, the appeal scheme would be contrary to policies S25 & S28 of the Westminster City Plan 2016 (City Plan), which together seek to conserve heritage assets and encourage design that respects heritage and local distinctiveness. It would also be contrary to the City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan 2007 (UDP) Policies DES 1, DES 5 and DES 9 which together state that extensions should not visually dominate the existing building, should respect the character and scale of existing buildings, and preserve or enhance the character of Conservation Areas. 1 See Section 72(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/18/3209565 3 Living Conditions 12. The scale and siting of the extension would preserve the outlook from neighbouring properties and would not give rise to an undue sense of enclosure for the residents of 4 Buckingham Place. The scheme as amended has overcome the previous Inspector’s concerns in this regard (Ref APP/X5990/D/17/3186048) and would not harmfully impact upon the outlook of occupiers. 13. The extension would be visible from the upper floors of 5 Buckingham Place. However, in view of the distance between the properties, and the oblique siting of 5 Buckingham Place in relation to the application property, there would not be an adverse impact on the outlook currently enjoyed by its occupiers. 14. Twenty-two Wilfred Street has an extension at lower ground and ground floor level with an enclosed terrace above. There are 2 windows on the flank elevation of the extension at ground floor level facing the appeal. The rear ground floor window to the original house, serving a reception room, is set off the boundary due to the presence of the chimney. The proposed extension would differ from that previously refused, being smaller in size and height and would not cause an undue sense of enclosure in terms of the outlook from this habitable room or from the rooms in the extension. The rear facing window at first floor level would be unaffected. 15. There are various raised sitting out areas in this narrow part of the block including that above the lower ground floor to 3 Buckingham Place and a small raised platform with seating to 4 Buckingham Place. The terrace on the roof of the ground floor extension to 22 Wilfred Street is accessed via an external staircase sited on the roof of the lower ground floor extension, adjoining the boundary with the appeal property. The area is one of a high degree of inter- visibility between properties due to the tapering nature of the block. In this context, the introduction of a terrace of the size and siting proposed would not result in significant harm in terms of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. 16. In light of the foregoing, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of 4 and 5 Buckingham Place, or 22 Wilfred Street. Accordingly, the development would not conflict with Policy S29 of the City Plan which seeks to resist proposals that would result in an unacceptable material loss of residential amenity, or UDP Policy ENV13 which requires that development should not result in a significant sense of enclosure or overlooking. Conclusion 17. The proposed development would safeguard the living conditions of neighbours but this is to be expected and therefore it would be outweighed by the harm that would occur to the significance of the CA. 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. D Jackman INSPECTOR