Appeal 3264056

Listed building consent in respect of both appeal developments have been granted by the Council. It therefore remains whether either or both appeal schemes should also be granted planning permission.

Since the applications were determined by the Council, it has now adopted its City Plan 2019-2040. The Council informs me that there have been no significant changes in policies relevant to these appeals. I have considered the appeals on the basis of the latest development plan.

The main issue in both appeals is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring property, namely the first floor [address], in terms of outlook.

No. [site address] comprises a [name] listed 5-storey property forming part of a listed terrace of similarly designed properties lying within the Belgravia Conservation Area opposite the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of [address].

Having granted listed building consent for both schemes, the Council acknowledged that the appeal proposals would preserve and not harm the significance of the listed building. I have no reason to disagree with that assessment. Moreover, it has raised no material concerns relating to the effects of either of the proposed developments on the significance of the Registered Park and Garden or in terms of whether the appeal schemes would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The focus of these appeals relates only to the effects on the living conditions of a neighbouring property.

The schemes are similar in design with the only difference being the height of the proposed rear closet wing (Appeal A: approximately 6100mm in height; Appeal B: approximately 6700mm in height). Otherwise, they have more or less the same dimensions in terms of depth of some 1560mm and width of Appeal Decisions APP/X5990/D/20/3264056, APP/X5990/D/21/3268179 some 2825mm max. The Council’s main concern is in relation to the extent of projection from the rear wall.

There is little dispute between the parties that both appeal schemes would reinstate a rear closet wing removed some time after 1914 according to archive drawings of the property. There is also agreement that there is a perception of a tight urban grain to the rear of the appeal property and its neighbours, including the immediate neighbour No.49. From photographs accompanying the evidence, including from the occupier of the neighbouring property and from my own site visit, there are a variety of structures, differing roof planes, enclosed and open outdoor living spaces and other paraphernalia that combine to create an eclectic built arrangement to the rear of this terrace. Moreover, given the tight layout, there is a high degree of intervisibility between properties with resultant overlooking of private outdoor spaces and in some cases, direct and indirect views of windows to neighbouring properties.

The Council was satisfied that there would be no unacceptable impact on living conditions arising from loss of daylight or sunlight and from my reading of the reports that accompanied the planning applications, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment in these regards. Further, the Council was satisfied that potential noise from the operation of the lift within the closet wing would be within acceptable limits.

Although space between buildings is an important consideration that contributes to the enjoyment of properties by their occupiers and which can be harmed through unacceptable incremental additions and boundary treatments, I do not consider that the projection of some 1560mm as proposed by the appeal schemes or their final height would be significantly harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of the flat at No.49. Despite the tight urban grain found at this location, I found that a degree of openness exists to the rear aspect of No.49, which benefits from the number of openings facing the appeal site. Consequently, the proposals would not create unacceptable material loss of residential amenity, which Policy S29 of the Council’s City Plan seeks to prevent but rather, the development would improve the residential environment overall.

Consequently, both appeal schemes would comply with the Council’s development plan in these respects.

Although the Council has not raised any concerns about the effect on the Conservation Area, section 72 of 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 that Area. The Belgravia Conservation Area is characterised by its original surviving network of stucco-clad squares and terraces set out on spacious streets, some of which overlook highly attractive central gardens. The rears of properties are of very different character with changes having taken place over many years. Notwithstanding, each of the proposals would reinstate a closet wing albeit in modified form from the original. Either scheme would therefore better reveal the original character and significance of a listed building within the Conservation Area as well as concealing the unattractive modern render that followed the removal of the original closet wing. The Council acknowledged these benefits when granting listed building consent. Appeal Decisions APP/X5990/D/20/3264056, APP/X5990/D/21/3268179

I do not consider that there would be any unacceptable harm to the Conservation Area would arise in this case and, at the very least, the character of this Area would be preserved.

I have not been supplied with a suggested list of conditions by either party but have followed the advice contained in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance. For both appeals and, in addition to the standard time limit, conditions are included requiring compliance with approved plans to provide certainty and requiring prior approval in writing by the Council of all external materials to be used in the construction in order to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons I conclude that both [name] and B should be allowed.