Appeal 6000352

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including the Castelnau Conservation Area (CA) and the adjacent [name] (MOL).

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 includes pairs of classical villas within extensive gardens. Relevant to this appeal, its significance is the age and attractive character of its buildings, and its green, verdant surroundings and setting.

The appeal site consists of what was originally a coach house to number 128 Castelnau (No. 128), a semi-detached villa. [site address] has become a separate dwelling and has been much altered, including with extensions. That said, its front elevation retains a modest, simple character, reflecting its history as a subservient building to No. 128, including the visible brickwork of a former arched opening. As such, the appeal building makes a positive contribution to the CA, within which it lies.

To the east of the site, what were historically fields behind properties on Castelnau became reservoirs by the year 1910. In later years some of this area became allotments, as now. The land subject to the appeal, and an adjacent strip associated with No. 128, once formed part of the fields and reservoir/allotment land, prior to being sold. They are divided from the allotments by a mature hedgerow. Nevertheless, they have the appearance of largely undeveloped greenery, despite some domestic development. The allotment land includes many shed-type structures but is otherwise green, open and designated as MOL.

The proposal seeks to erect a single storey extension to the side elevation of [site address] . The flank elevation proposed to be extended forms part of a reasonably consistent line between residential uses to the rear of Castelnau, and the allotments beyond. This division is reinforced in the vicinity of the appeal site by the position of garages, and the siting of a new dwelling currently under construction at 130a Castelnau1. This line historically formed the edge of the plot of the appeal site, and still forms the boundary of the CA. The proposed extension, as well as the proposed garden building, would therefore be outside of the CA, but adjacent to it.

Although separated from the MOL area by the land associated with No. 128, the proposal would extend the dwelling such that it would encroach into and undermine the current open and green appearance of the site and its surroundings. It would thus fail to respect the established pattern of development referred to above. As such, it would appear out of place and would detract from the character and openness of the nearby MOL.

Moreover, the extension would have a fairly lengthy width, and a tall, pitched roof height, which would extend to just below the eaves of the dwelling. The roof pitch would be the same as the host, rather than being subservient. As a result, the extension would be excessively large and dominant in the context of the modest coach house, particularly its northern elevation. Although intended to provide differentiation, the metal cladding material of the extension would conflict with and detract from the traditional appearance of [site address] .

Accordingly, despite being an obvious addition, with few if any views of the extension obtainable from public viewpoints, it would not harmonise with the host dwelling. It would thus conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document2 and harm the significance and setting of the CA as a whole.

Development in [address] and [address] surrounds the MOL, and house extensions have been approved close to its boundary. However, I do not have the full circumstances of their history or design, or their relationship to established boundaries or any CA, thus preventing useful comparison. Similarly, I have few details of the design of outbuildings approved to dwellings at 106 and 122 Castelnau.

The appeal application also proposes an outbuilding which I understand already has planning permission3, and which would project further outwards than the proposed extension. Nevertheless, its appearance would be simple and subservient. It would be separated from the dwelling and includes a green roof, helping it to assimilate. Its presence would not therefore have the same adverse effects on its surroundings as the extension, and so does not justify it. There is no dispute that the proposal would require planning permission.

For the reasons given above, the proposed extension would conflict with policies LP1 and LP3 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, policies 28 and 29 of 1 LPA reference 22/0901/FUL 2 [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, May 2015 3 LPA reference 23/0604/HOT the publication draft of the emerging Local Plan, and policy HC1 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021. These require compatibility with local character including scale, form and materials, and the conservation of heritage assets, their setting and significance. It would also conflict with Local plan Policy LP13, and similar publication draft policy 35, which require that, when considering development outside MOL, any possible visual impacts on its character and openness are taken into account.

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 form part of energy sustainability improvements, the repair of existing walls and improved internal light. However, these would be relatively small, largely private benefits. Consequently, I conclude that its public benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA.

The appellant has expressed concerns about the handling of the planning application by the Council, including inconsistent advice given and the absence of a site visit. Whilst this must have caused distress, it does not materially change my consideration of the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.