For a new roof terrace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/X5990/D/18/3212788 56 Eccleston Square Mews, London, SW1V 1QN  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 Miss Louisa Chamberlain against the decision of the City of Westminster Council.  The application Ref 18/05630/FULL, dated 4 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 August 2018.  The development proposed is for a new roof terrace. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new roof terrace at 56 Eccleston Square Mews, London, SW1V 1QN in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 18/05630/FULL, dated 4 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: EM/03A, EM/04A and EM/05. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character of the host building and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Pimlico Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located within an area of mixed use and where buildings are generally well conserved. Within the immediate locality and from the junction of Warwick Way with Clarendon Street/Warwick Place North I observed two examples of roof terraces bounded by timber screening at 5 Warwick Place North and 86 Warwick Way. The remainder of the roofs that I observed from this point have either been left as originally constructed and concealed behind a parapet, or have had mansard roof extensions much like the appeal dwelling itself. 4. 56 Eccleston Square Mews is located on the corner of Warwick Place North and Eccleston Square Mews and is therefore in a quite prominent location particularly when viewing it from the north. However, this view is against the Appeal Decision APP/X5990/D/18/3212788 2 backdrop of 4 Warwick Place North and 57 Eccleston Square Mews; both dwellings have 3 storeys above ground level and have roof terraces, the latter for which is particularly prominent in the street scene. 5. Unlike these neighbouring terraces, the proposal would be set well in from both principal elevations, behind very simple ‘KeyKlamp’ railings. In reality one would only see the railings if upon the mansard roof of the appeal dwelling or when viewing from adjacent roof terraces, and potentially from some upper floor windows of surrounding buildings. These railings would be functional in their design, but ultimately would have a minimal visual impact upon the character of the subject building, unlike the heritage railings that the council suggested within its list of conditions (see below). 6. I note that Policy DES6 of the City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan (2007) (UDP) stipulates that permission may be refused for roof level alterations, including roof terraces, where the extension would be visually intrusive or unsightly when seen in longer public or private views from ground or upper levels. In view of the low key appearance of the railings and the modest 20cm deck proposed, I consider that the visual impact upon the character of the host dwelling and the street scene would be slight. Further, I consider that it would at the very least preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore I find that the proposal does not conflict with UDP Policy DES6. In addition to this, I also find that the proposal complies with UDP Policies DES1 and DES9, as well as Policies S25 and S28 of Westminster’s City Plan (2016) which together seek to maintain the character, urban grain, scale and hierarchy of existing buildings, whilst recognising Westminster’s wider historic environment and the conservation of its heritage assets. Conclusion and Conditions 7. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 8. Other than the standard time limit condition, the Council has suggested that balustrading to the terrace should be of traditional vertical black metal type although has not provided reasons as to why. However, I consider that such a feature would have a greater impact upon the character and appearance of the area, due to a greater density of balusters; and in the absence of a reason for the imposition of such a condition I consider this to be unnecessary. However, for the avoidance of doubt, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is also imposed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR