Appeal 6000335

The appeal is dismissed.

It is clear from the Council’s decision that its sole objection relates to the proposed rear dormer. I have no evidence before me to reach a contrary view to the Council in this regard and therefore the consideration of this appeal focuses on the effect of the proposed rear dormer.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Plumstead Common Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 147), a traditionally-styled Victorian-era 2-storey mid-terrace dwelling with an original 2-storey rear outrigger, located in a residential area. 2-storey terraced dwellings predominate in the local area.

The site is within the Plumstead Common Conservation Area (conservation area). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

As explained in the Plumstead Common Conservation Area: [name] (2010) ([name]), the significance of the conservation area, as a whole, as a designated heritage asset is derived predominantly from the ancient [name] at the heart of the conservation area together with those Victorian houses and other buildings on its rim which contribute to its setting, many of which retain their traditional Victorian character.

I observed that, apart from an existing roof light, the rear roof form of No 147 is presently undisturbed. It has retained its coherent design and modest appearance, which is in-keeping with No 147’s traditional design. Apart from a limited number of exceptions, the majority of the other roofs to the rear of dwellings on [address] are also undisturbed.

Due to its depth, width, and height, the proposed rear dormer would constitute a sizeable and bulky structure on No 147’s rear roof form. It would accordingly noticeably disrupt its presently undisturbed appearance. Moreover, whilst the dormer would be set in by approximately 1 metre from the shared boundary with [address], it would nevertheless be awkwardly positioned, in that it would be sited very close to the side of the roof shared with [address]. As an overly-dominant feature on the rear roof slope, it would compromise No 147’s traditional appearance. It would also not reflect the existing pattern of development described above, where large rear dormers are uncommon in the vicinity of the site.

Hence, the proposed development would not accord with paragraph i.66 of the SPD1 which provides that, amongst other things, dormers at the rear should be well spaced and positioned within the existing roof slope. It would also be at odds with the guidance given in the [name], that dormers should be small.

It follows that harm to the significance of the conservation area would result. As this harm would be localised, the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area. The localised nature of the adverse impacts also means that the extent of the harm within this category would be moderate. Nevertheless, any harm to a designated heritage asset is of considerable importance and weight. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development.

The additional living space provided by the proposed development would provide mainly private benefits, rather than public benefits. Thus, the public benefits of the proposed development attract little weight. The public benefits accordingly do not outweigh the harm identified, taking account of the great weight given to the conservation of the designated heritage asset, as required by paragraph 212 of the Framework.

None of the examples of other dormers put forward by the appellant in their Appeal Statement are located within the Plumstead Common Conservation Area, nor are they located in any other conservation area. As such, these examples are not directly comparable with the circumstances of the proposed development. They do not change my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. It would conflict with part i. of Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (adopted 2014) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, to achieve a high quality of design, all developments are expected to provide a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context by taking account of the architecture of surrounding buildings, and with Policy DH3 of the 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, the Royal Borough will protect and enhance the heritage assets and settings of [name].

The proposed development would conflict with part iii. of Policy DH(a) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all new roof extensions should be designed to respect the scale and character of the host building, the street scene and the surrounding area, and with part i) of Policy DH(h) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, planning permission will only be granted for proposals which pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The proposed development would conflict with part D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards local character, and with part C of Policy HC1 of the London Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings.

The proposed development would also conflict with chapter 16 of the Framework, which seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.