For the replacement of skylight installation and new decking and railings installation onto the existing roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 May 2019 by S Witherley BA, PGDiP, PGDiP, Cert CIH, Assoc RTPI Decision by A U Ghafoor BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/K5600/D/19/3226502 12 Thurloe Place Mews, London, SW7 2HL • 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 Jonathan Willen against the decision by the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. • The application Ref PP/18/08485, dated 19 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 February 2019. • The development proposed is for the replacement of skylight installation and new decking and railings installation onto the existing roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the construction of a roof terrace, including the replacement of the skylight and installation of decking and railings on the roof in accordance with the terms of application PP/18/08485, dated 19 December 2019, and 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: PL_001 rev.P1; PL_110 rev.P1; PL_111 rev.P1; PL_120 rev.P1; PL_125 rev.P1. 3. The railings, hereby approved, shall be painted black, and so maintained. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matters 3. The description of development on the application form refers to the replacement of skylight installation and new decking and railings installation onto the existing roof. The Council have changed the description to the construction of roof terrace, including replacement skylight and installation of decking and railings on the roof. This accurately describes the proposed works, and this is the description I have used above. Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/19/3226502 2 4. For clarity the title of the Conservation Area stated on the Conservation Area map has been adopted, Thurloe/Smith Charity Conservation Area. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the existing and future occupiers of the second-floor accommodation at No. 38 Thurloe Place and neighbouring occupiers. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal building is a two storey Mews house with flat roof located to the rear of Thurloe Place, a well-established, mixed use, urban area. The Mews is a ‘L’ shaped cul de sac which contains mainly two storey dwellings in a variety of different styles and finishes. A number of properties within the Mews have been developed at roof level including the installation of roof terraces. The Council have stated that the neighbouring roof terrace at No. 11 Thurloe Place has not benefitted from all the appropriate planning permissions, however, no details have been submitted regarding this. In any event, it is clear that roof extensions and terraces are part of the character and appearance of the area. 7. The Mews dwellings co-occur with the rear taller and more prominent properties in Thurloe Place. The rear elevation of Thurloe Place overlooks the appeal site and has a number of historic additions and windows overlooking the appeal site. The western side of the rear elevation is attached to the appeal site and at the eastern side the wall is detached and set back as a result of a ground floor external yard. 8. The development would create an area of outdoor living space and this use may increase the perception of overlooking experienced between the site and surrounding properties, particularly to and from a rear window on the second-floor of No. 38 Thurloe Place. There is disagreement between the Council and the appellant that this window looking down onto the appeal site serves a habitable kitchen room of a residential property. Despite this, it must be recognised that the site is located in a densely built up urban area and that some degree of mutual overlooking is to be expected, as is currently the case with the other roof extensions and terraces throughout the Mews. 9. Given that the window is recessed and set above the appeal site, it is unlikely that there would be a significant increase of overlooking and intrusion into the privacy and enjoyment of the existing or future occupiers of this property or existing and future occupiers of the host property. The proposal would, therefore, retain a reasonable level of visual privacy for the existing and future occupiers of the second-floor accommodation of No. 38 Thurloe Place, the host property and neighbouring occupiers as required by Policy CL5 of the Consolidated Local Plan Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea July 2015 (CLP RBKC). 10.The Council are concerned about noise and general disturbance. However, given that the appeal site is in a mixed-use urban area, the nature of any noise arsing from the limited scale of the area’s use in connection with residential living would not generate significant levels of noise and disturbance. Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/19/3226502 3 11.For all the above reasons, the development would not adversely affect the living conditions of existing or future occupiers of the second-floor accommodation at No. 38 Thurloe Place and neighbouring occupiers. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy CL5 of the CLP RBKC. Other matters 12.The appeal site is located within the Thurloe/Smith’s Charity Conservation Area (CA). I concur with the Council that the design, siting and location of the terrace would preserve the character or appearance of the CA. There is very little information suggesting a grant of planning permission would set a harmful precedent. In any event, this appeal has been assessed on its individual merits. Conditions 13.The standard time limit condition has been imposed along with a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition securing the colour of the railings has also been attached, in the interest of safeguarding the character of the area and appearance of the host property. The Council proposed a condition that seeks to secure no items greater than 1100mm in height to be fixed or placed on the terrace. This condition would be unreasonable as it is too imprecise and may leave the appellant in doubt as to what they can and can’t do. Conclusion 14.For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, it is recommended that the appeal should be allowed. S Witherley APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions above. A U Ghafoor INSPECTOR