Rear, first floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 December 2018 by P D Sedgwick BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A5840/D/18/3212940 46 Glengall Road, London, SE15 6NH  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 D Sengupta against the decision of Southwark Council.  The application Ref 18/AP/2377, dated 10 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 September 2018.  The development proposed is a rear, first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. An access required site visit was arranged for the morning of 17 December 2018. I visited the site at 9.30 am on that date and was not allowed access to the property. However, I was able to view the rear of the property from Burgess Park and see everything I needed to in order to determine this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Glengall Road Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site relates to a three-storey terraced house within Glengall Road Conservation Area. The extension would be the same width as the host building and extend from its rear elevation approximately three metres to accommodate an increase in bedroom size and an en-suite toilet and shower. 5. There are several extensions to the rear of the terrace, one of which is a similar height and the other higher than that which is proposed. The Council is concerned that the width and bulk of the proposed first floor extension would harm the appearance of the building and therefore also harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/A5840/D/18/3212940 2 6. The appellant suggests that a similar first floor extension on the immediate neighbouring property sets a precedent for this type of proposal. In the appellant’s view, joining the proposal to the neighbouring extension would serve to balance the urban form. 7. The extension on the neighbouring property whilst similar in scale does not cover the full width of the host property. In this respect it is less dominant than the proposed extension and is acceptable in the context of that dwelling. The differences in appearance and scale to that of the proposal means that it does not in my view set a precedent. Furthermore, rather than balancing the urban form, joining the two extensions would create a bulky addition that would detract from, and harm the appearance of, both dwellings. 8. The site visit confirmed a variety of styles of housing within the Conservation Area. The rear of many houses can be seen from Burgess Park and therefore contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, the appeal site is mostly screened from the park by trees and bushes and a vegetated slope that rises towards Glengall Road. Nevertheless, there were glimpses of the appeal site from within the Park and there would be views of the proposal from windows on the gable end of a block of flats to the rear of it, and from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. 9. Given the small scale of the development within the context of the Conservation Area as a whole, it would not harm its character. There would however be harm in terms of its appearance. The harm would be localised, limited and less than substantial but would nevertheless be contrary to saved policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.16 of the Southwark Plan (2007) and Strategic Policy 12 of the Core Strategy (April 2011) which require development to preserve or enhance the historic environment and which seek high quality design that enhances the built environment. 10. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires justification and, in accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. Although no public benefits have been put forward by the appellant, there would be modest benefits arising from short term employment during its construction. However, such benefits would not outweigh the harm to the appearance of the building and Glengall Road Conservation Area. Other Matter 11. Though it was not a reason for refusal, the Council’s delegated report describes harm from the extension to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for its effect on the appearance of the Conservation Area, I have not pursued this matter further. 12. For the reasons above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. P D Sedgwick INSPECTOR