Appeal 3364280

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of the existing structure at second floor level with a conservatory at [site address] , London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application ref. PP/24/08258 and the plans submitted with it (157 001 [name] 1, 157 002 [name] 1, 157 010 [name] 1, 157 020 [name] 1, 157 021 [name] 1, 157 030 [name] 1), subject to the following

The conservatory-style extension hereby approved shall be timber framed, white painted, and so maintained thereafter.

At my site visit, I saw that the development has been completed and I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively.

The main issues are the the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounds, including the Lots Village Conservation Area (CA); and b)  the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to artificial light pollution.

The appeal site consists of a mid-terrace dwelling with rear outrigger in high-density, urban surrounds. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of uses, with commercial outlets and a medical centre in close proximity. [address] leads onto Westfield Park a short distance to the south. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

The special architectural and historic interest of the CA derives from the working area of industry, commercial riverside uses, small factories, breweries and workshops within a working class community housed in artisan terraced housing. Being situated in the CA, I have applied the statutory duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA by attaching considerable importance and weight to that desirability.

Although the front elevations of the short terrace of which the appeal dwelling is a part display uniformity, the rear of the row exhibits greater variation between the properties. Within this setting, I consider that the conservatory does not appear out of keeping; it is of small scale and visually connects with the overall appearance of the building, without being imposing or dominant. Moreover, I have had regard to the pre-existing plans and historic photographs provided by the appellant in my considerations, which demonstrate that the scheme replaces a covered area serving a store room. I am satisfied that the impact above and beyond the previous structure would be neutral, having also borne in mind that the Council would require this feature to be reinstated were the appeal to be unsuccessful.

I appreciate that the conservatory results in an increased extent of glazing, however there are myriad windows looking out over [address], serving both residential units and the adjacent medical centre. I do not consider that the development has an adverse effect given this context.

I acknowledge the party wall that has been created on the common boundary with [address], which from the photos is larger than before. Whilst this is a more balanced issue, I am mindful that the parapet wall at roof level between [address] and the medical centre is of broadly similar scale and appearance, and to my mind has an analogous impact upon the character of the terrace. As such, I find that the party wall element is not so detrimental as to warrant a refusal of permission on this ground.

I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounds, including the CA. It would conform with Policies CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD10, CD13 and CD15 of the New Local Plan July 2024 (NLP), which together seek to ensure proposals relate to surrounding development, meet high standards of design, and protect the character of conservation areas.

[name] have noted above, the are numerous windows and some glazed doors looking out over [address], serving both residential units and the adjacent medical centre. In this context I find that the development would not appreciably add to light spill, glare or pollution above and over that presently experienced in this tight-knit, metropolitan neighbourhood.

I consider that the proposal would not be injurious to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to artificial light pollution. This would meet with Policies GB10 and CD9 of the NLP, which seek to ensure that development does not harm the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance and the Framework. The development is complete and therefore the standard time limit and plans condition are no longer necessary. The scheme has been installed with a white-painted, timber frame and a condition is imposed to retain this finish to ensure a satisfactory appearance in perpetuity. _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Having regard to the above and all other issues, the appeal is allowed.