Erection of a second floor extension to the existing two storey rear projection, together with installation of roof light to main roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2019 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/18/3215872 5 Milverton Street, London SE11 4AP • 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. David Lewis against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth. • The application Ref 18/02793/FUL, dated 1 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2018. • The development proposed is “erection of a second floor extension to the existing two storey rear projection, together with installation of roof light to main roof”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have used the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as this succinctly describes the proposal. Main Issues 3. There are two main issues: • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Kennington Conservation Area and • Its effect on the occupants of No 4 with particular regard to daylight and outlook. Reasons Effect on the Conservation Area 4. No 5 forms part of a terrace of properties within the Kennington Conservation Area (CA). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. 5. The National Planning Policy Framework advises when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset such as a CA, great weight should be given to its conservation. Any harm or loss requires clear and convincing justification. Where a proposal would lead to substantial harm, consent should be refused unless substantial public benefits can be demonstrated that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a proposal would Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3215872 2 lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 6. The key features of this terrace are its high quality, its consistency and uniformity and so the terrace retains much of its original character. Its unity provides a sense of place. The terrace therefore makes a positive contribution to the CA and is a good example of the mid 19th century Venetian Gothic style terrace. 7. The rear of the terrace is as important as the front of the terrace. This is because the rear elevation is largely intact with a distinctive and regular rhythm and pattern to it. Glimpses of the rear can be seen from Wigton Place and Methley Street. 8. The proposal is to add a further storey to the existing two storey rear projection. Whilst the proposal would mirror the existing design of the outrigger by incorporating a mono-pitch roof, I disagree that the additional element would remain subservient to the host building. At present, the outrigger appears on each of the properties and therefore the rear elevation has a unity and neatness to it. The pattern created and the interest from these elements is an important and positive feature of the CA. 9. The addition of the further storey and the resultant increase in height would break up the pattern of the rear elevation. Rather than appear as a subservient element which would retain the pattern, it would be a dominant and discordant feature distracting from, and breaking up, the rhythm and destroying the visual unity. No other properties in this run have a similar extension. Whilst it would be seen against the backdrop of the building, it would disrupt the visual appearance, pattern and unity of the terrace. 10. The proposal would therefore alter one of the terrace’s essential and defining features; its largely intact regular rhythm and unity and would have a significant, and unacceptable, impact on it. The proposal would therefore be an unsympathetic addition to, and detract from, the character and appearance of the host building. It would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Kennington CA and would, in fact, be harmful to it. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies Q5, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (LP) adopted in September 2015. Amongst other things, these policies collectively seek to ensure that new development respects and responds to the positive aspects of the local context and reinforces local distinctiveness. 11. It would also be contrary to the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Effect on living conditions 12. The mass and bulk of the additional storey and its increase in height would materially reduce the level of daylight reaching the first and second floor rear windows and the glazed roof of the lower level infill to No 4. 13. I have considered outlook on the basis of any harm which would be caused by an overbearing development. The outlook from the first and second floor windows would be limited by the presence of the proposal. This would result in a greater sense of oppression and enclosure. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3215872 3 14. As a result the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 with particular reference to both daylight and outlook. The proposal would not therefore accord with LP Policy Q2 which seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future occupants. This policy broadly reflects the general thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to secure well designed places and a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other matters 15. Other extensions in the area have been drawn to my attention. No two sites or proposals are identical and the particular contribution No 5 makes, the group it forms part of and the terrace’s contribution to the CA distinguish this proposal from others. I do not consider that these other extensions provide an example that should inevitably be followed given the harm I have identified. The other examples therefore do not weigh heavily in the overall planning balance. 16. The proposal would, in itself, be designed well. Other improvements to the property such as the replacement of more appropriate roofing materials would also be carried out. However, the harm I have identified outweighs any particular design merits of the proposal and many of the improvements could be undertaken without the development going ahead. Conclusion 17. Even though the proposal would by itself lead to the less than substantial harm referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework, I attach considerable importance and weight to the harm caused to the CA and this harm would outweigh any public benefits for example of improving the living accommodation for the appellant and his family. Additional harm would be caused by the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4. 18. Accordingly for the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR