Appeal 6000178

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has asked that I consider the drawings that were submitted originally, before amended plans were provided to the Council. However, the revised versions are the only ones before me. In any case, I have based my decision on the plans considered by the Council when it reached its decision.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. The appellant has used this revised description in the appeal form and so I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, which lies within the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA consists primarily of detached dwellings on [address], but also encompasses [address], a cul-de-sac of five blocks of modest terraced dwellings.

[address] has a tight urban grain with a distinctive, planned and broadly symmetrical appearance. This includes deliberate gaps between terraced blocks. These gaps are of differing widths and prominence, but they are nevertheless important in avoiding excessive enclosure and providing relief from the built form. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the attractive character of its buildings, spaces and street scenes.

The appeal site is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling. In having a form, design and layout similar to others in the Close, including a gap to the side, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the CA.

The proposal seeks to erect a single- and two-storey side extension, with a further single-storey addition to the rear. It would be set back to the front and side, so that a gap to the boundary with the adjoining terraced block ([address]) would remain. The extension would also have a lower ridge height than its host, thus appearing subservient to it.

Even so, the proposal would reduce the gap to the adjacent block, thereby diminishing the sense of space and relief provided by it. Furthermore, the narrow width of the proposed extension above ground floor level would have an unusually thin and awkward appearance. As a result, the proposal would result in a harmful degree of enclosure, and would appear contrived, odd, and out of place.

The dwellings at 17 and [address] have existing two-storey side extensions, albeit approved many years ago. However, these are corner plots, leading to wider space beyond, and so the extensions maintain a separation from the other terraces. The same is true of single storey projections to properties either side of the entrance to the Close. They are therefore different from the proposal, and so do not justify it.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the CA as a whole. It would therefore conflict with policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, which requires compatibility with local character including development patterns, scale and form. The proposal would also conflict with Local Plan policy LP3 and policy HC1 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021, which require conservation of the heritage asset and its significance, as well as conflicting with the statutory test of the Act.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that I give great weight to the preservation of the CA. In the language of the Framework, the harm to the CA would be less than substantial and should be weighed against public benefits. The proposal would provide more space within the dwelling, improving its internal accommodation, to make it more usable. However, these are essentially private benefits. Consequently, I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA.

For the reasons given, there would be conflict with the Development Plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.