Appeal 6000126

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the header is from the Council’s decision notice. It is different to that on the planning application form but the appellant has confirmed it is correct in their grounds of appeal document.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to its Supplementary Planning Document on Shopfronts (the SPD). The appeal proposal relates to works to a dwelling and so the provisions of the SPD appear to be irrelevant. Therefore, I have not assessed the proposed development against the SPD.

The refusal reason also refers to policies LP28 and LP29 of a regulation 19 version of an emerging local plan (the eLP). [name] understand the situation, the eLP has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination but it has not yet been adopted by the Council. However, I agree with the Council that eLP policies LP28 and LP29 should be afforded significant weight in my assessment as the eLP is at an advanced stage towards its adoption.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been issued since the Council’s decision on the application leading to this appeal. There is no need to seek the main parties’ comments on the Framework as the parts most relevant to my assessment remain largely unaltered.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (the CA).

The CA includes a 1920’s and 1930’s housing estate. The Council’s note on the CA explains its significance and attractiveness is derived not just from landscaped road verges but also the fairly uniform architectural style of the dwellings. It is evident from the road that some of the houses have been altered although many retain their original form and style. Dwellings with brick or rendered walls, pitched tiled roofs and traditional style windows and doors are most prevalent in the CA.

The appeal property (No 40) is a detached house of a style that is typical to the locality. A wide garage that has been added to the front of the property is an unusual feature to the area. Even so, sufficient elements of the original dwelling remain on the rest of the building so that it continues to contribute positively to the qualities and significance of the CA. The proposed alterations to the front of the house would be clearly seen from the road through the 2 accesses onto the site and so they would have an impact on the character and appearance of the locality.

The loss of traditional architectural features due to unsympathetic alterations to properties is identified as a problem in the submitted note on the CA. It seems likely the dummy pitch roof to the garage and existing canopy over the front door are not original features. Nonetheless, they ensure the ground floor of the front of No 40 displays a level of consistency with the main pitched roof of the house. In contrast, the proposal would result in the garage and the new porch having a flat roof. The block-like form of these prominent elements would be at odds with the rest of the front elevation. Moreover, the terracotta screen and new front door would be non-traditional architectural features that would be incompatible with the original style of the house. The replacement garage door and new brick finish surround would not stand out as unusual features, especially when compared to the existing front elevation. Even so, when considered as a whole, the ground floor front alterations would fail to harmonise with No 40’s current style.

The appellant refers to various other nearby properties that they suggest have been altered and extended in a similar manner to the proposed development to the front of No 40. I note the contemporary design of doors and porches at other properties as well as the small flat roof garage at the property opposite. However, such features are fairly uncommon in the street, particularly when compared to the prevalent traditional form, style and appearance of most of the dwellings. Furthermore, the appeal development would have a particular visual effect on the appeal property that is not wholly reflected in any of the nearby houses. The proposal would result in a marked discord between the contemporary style of the ground floor and more traditional appearance to the first floor and above. The mix of styles and materials on the principal elevation would spoil the appearance of the property and harm its contribution to the CA.

The new first floor windows would replace original features but they would be of a traditional style and would add a level of consistency to the fenestration that currently does not exist. As such, the alterations at first floor level to the front would be appropriate. Also, the Council raises no objections to the elements of the proposal that affect the rear of the property as they would not be readily seen from the street. However, the acceptability of these parts of the scheme fails to address or justify the incongruity of the proposed ground floor front alterations.

For these reasons, I conclude the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In these regards, it would be contrary to policies LP1 and LP3 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan 2018 and eLP policies LP28 and LP29. Amongst other things, these look to ensure development is of high architectural quality that maintains or enhances the conservation areas.

Given its scale and fairly localised visual effects, the development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework dictates the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Section 4.3 of the appellant’s grounds of appeal document lists a number of matters that it is claimed are not in dispute between the appellant and the Council. However, acceptability in all of these regards is not a public benefit that weighs in favour of allowing the appeal.

The proposal would provide additional floorspace for the occupants of No 40. However, the property is already sizeable and contains sufficient facilities to serve as a family dwelling. Moreover, it does not follow that a decision to dismiss this appeal means that alternative schemes to enlarge the property would also be unacceptable. Therefore, this factor attracts limited weight in my assessment.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective as to whether any harm would be substantial or less than substantial. Therefore, I find the identified harm to the character and appearance of the locality and the significance of the CA is the overriding factor. The proposal would not accord with development plan policies when read as a whole and insufficient justification exists to grant planning permission contrary to the development plan. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.