Appeal 3347734

The appeal is dismissed.

The dormer that is the subject of this appeal has been constructed. The appeal therefore relates to a retrospective application to vary planning condition 2.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cheyne Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a 3-storey house with a lower ground floor and accommodation in the roof. It forms part of a terrace of 7 largely identical houses on the south side of [address]. It is situated in a part of the Cheyne Conservation Area (CCA) that is characterised by formal early to mid-Victorian houses with stuccoed ground floor frontages with stock brick above. The appeal property and the terrace of which it is part make a clear and substantial contribution to the character and appearance of the CCA.

All of the houses in the terrace to either side of the appeal property include dormers in the front roof slope. These are positioned roughly centrally in the roof slope and vary in respect of their size and design. They are though all set a sufficient distance behind the parapet wall to ensure they are not apparent in views along [address]. In longer views along [address] the larger dormer windows at 1 and [address] are relatively prominent elements in the street scene by comparison to the more modestly sized dormers at Nos 2 and 4.

Planning permission was granted in December 2021 for the repositioning and enlargement of the front dormer window. The drawings approved in 2021 show a dormer that is similar in size and positioning to those at Nos 1 and 3.

The appeal scheme comprises a wider dormer that is sited closer to the parapet wall than the original and approved dormers, and the dormers at Nos 1 and 3. As a consequence of its size and positioning it is apparent in views from both [address] and [address] and more noticeable than the relatively large and prominent dormers at Nos 1 and 3. In the context of the smaller dormers to either side the appeal scheme is an overly prominent and incongruous addition to the terrace.

I conclude therefore that due to its siting and size the appeal scheme has an unacceptable effect on the appearance of the terrace and fails to preserve the character and appearance of the CCA. Consequently, it fails to accord with Policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL6, CL8 or CL11 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan (2019) which, amongst other matters seek to achieve good design and local distinctiveness, safeguard views, and preserve heritage assets.

Whilst the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CCA, the harm to this heritage asset would be less than substantial. In these circumstances Paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) requires me to weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. As the proposal simply provides extra private space for the occupiers of the appeal property there would be no public benefits arising from it.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.