Appeal 3369393

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the refurbishment and extension of [site address] , with the addition of a dormer window extension. Building to be used as workshops ancillary to [address] at Garage [address], Southsea, Portsmouth, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00240/HOU, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this decision:

There was a previous appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/D/24/3355865 in December 2024. This appeal was for the complete demolition of [site address] and its replacement with new two-storey workshop ancillary to [address]. This would have resulted in the complete loss of the original 19th Century structure. This appeal proposal on the other hand is for the retention, refurbishment and alteration of the existing building. I am aware of that earlier case and the Inspectors decision. However, the two schemes are not directly comparable and therefore I shall consider this appeal for alterations and extension on its individual planning merits.

I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host property, the setting of [address] a locally listed building and thereby whether the development would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Owens Southsea Conservation Area.

The appeal property [site address] (No 22-22a) is a modest 19th Century two-storey structure. It is located in front of and shares a courtyard area with [address] (No24). Both properties are in the Owens’s Southsea Conservation Area. No 24 is locally listed, however No 22-22a is neither locally listed nor included in the Conservation Area’s Article 4 Direction. The surrounding area is generally residential on character.

Based on my observations on site it would appear that No 24 was probably a former coach house with No 22-22a having been the associated stables. No 24 is currently in residential occupation and No 22-22a provides ancillary garaging and storage to No 24. I consider, that due to its form and construction the appeal building makes a positive contribution to the setting of No 24 and the wider conservation area.

The appellants propose the part demolition, part-rebuild along with alterations including a roof extension. A change of use is not proposed, and therefore the building would remain in ancillary use to No 24.

A side roof extension is proposed in the form of a flat roof dormer built off the eastern roof slope. The dormer would be set well back from the north façade facing the street. The courtyard or south façade of the dormer would be timber clad while the north would be glazed.

The proposed dormer would be of a contrasting contemporary design clearly appearing as a later addition to this building such that the building’s original historic form would remain clearly evident. As it would be set well back from the street façade the dormer would not be prominent when viewed from the street or [address] more widely. Materials and specific further details of fenestration could be conditioned to ensure that these would be of a suitable quality and finish.

The proposed dormer would as the Council have identified, alter the historic roof line. However, from my observations on site the dormer as well as making the first floor a more useable space would, because of its contrasting design and its location set back from the street façade, not cause harm to the scale or form of the building.

The proposed alterations to the fenestration would alter their appearance. However, I consider the design proposal is both sympathetic and appropriate to the architectural character of the building and therefore would not cause harm to the appearance of the building.

For the reasons above I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would respect the architectural integrity of the host property, not harm the setting of No 24 and thereby it would serve to preserve the character and appearance of the Owens Southsea Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan ([name]) (Adopted 24 January 2012), and with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development, the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Numerous concerns were raised at planning application stage that the proposal was for a commercial workshop, which in turn could impact on the local amenity, including noise and disturbance, parking and road safety. The appeal building currently is incidental in use to the No 24 and therefore both buildings are in Use Class C3 Dwellinghouse. Accordingly, if this appeal were allowed it would not grant a change of use and the building would remain in its current use class. For this reason, if I were minded to allow the appeal, a condition would be neither necessary or reasonable to prevent a commercial use or to remove permitted development rights.

Issues in respect of overlooking and thereby loss of privacy have been raised by a neighbour on the opposite side of [address]. Given the width of the road, the relationship of the appeal property to No 23, and as the proposed dormer would be set well back from the street façade of the building I do not believe that overlooking from the new dormer window or the fully glazed loading door would result in such significant levels of overlooking as to lead to a loss of privacy and therefore harm to the neighbouring occupiers living conditions.

In respect of ecology, I note from the evidence before me that a Preliminary Roost Assessment was submitted with the planning application. It concluded that there was no evidence of bats, and the building has a negligible habitat value for bats. The Council found the assessment acceptable and required no further work, such as an emergence survey. Accordingly, I am not satisfied, based on the lack of evidence to the contrary, that there is justification to support local people’s concerns in this regard.

I am also aware of concerns raised as to how the Council dealt with the planning application. However, those matters do not fall within the scope of the appeal.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in light of the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of precision and enforceability, I have amended the Council’s suggested wording where appropriate.

The building is not listed, however, due to its historic form and appearance, sensitive location close to No 24 a locally listed building and its position in the conservation area I shall, in order to ensure a high quality development, include conditions about the materials to be used in the construction/alterations of the external surfaces of the development. Further, I will require details of external windows, doors and rooflights to be submitted to and approved by the Council.

In the interest of highway safety, I will require details of the opening of the replacement street level doors in the north elevation to be approved by the local planning authority.

In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

In addition, it has been suggested by interested parties that an hours of construction/operation condition would be necessary to protect residential living conditions if the development was to go ahead. Given that No 22-22A and 24 are residential properties, and the works are of a relatively minor nature I do not consider that such a condition would be necessary in this case.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: P24-002-SA-XX-ZZ-DR-A-10103 P2, 10201 P3, 10202 P1,10203 P1, 05100 P1 – Block Plan, 05100 P1 - Location plan and P24-002-22-22A revised.

No development shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction / alterations of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In respect of new facing bricks and natural roof slates a minimum of three different samples shall be submitted for consideration. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

No development shall take place until a sample panel of the proposed brickwork has been built on site for inspection and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The sample panel shall be at least 1.0 x 1.0 metre, and the panel is to show the bond of the brickwork, the joints are to be pointed with a mortar mix to match in respect of material, colour and composition the existing pointing, and the pointing technique is also to match the existing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until larger scale detailed plans and drawings showing (a) the proposed windows and doors to be installed, the drawings to include elevations at 1:20 with sections through the head, jamb and cill at 1:5, (b) detail drawings of the proposed dormer front and rear elevations at a scale of 1:20, a cross section through the dormer at 1:20 and sections through the head, jamb and cill of the window at 1:5, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the type and design of the proposed rooflights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the installation, hanging and opening details of the replacement street level doors in the north elevation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.