Appeal 6000487

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal scheme. The main issues in regard to which are its effect on a) the character and appearance of the host property, which is a locally listed building, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Plumstead Common Conservation Area (CA); and b) the living conditions of future occupiers of units F, G, H and I, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal building, known as ‘The Links’, occupies a prominent position overlooking the [name]. Originally constructed as an early Victorian house by [name], a notable local builder, it was later redeveloped in 1905 by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society to create a terrace of shops. Today, the property continues to reflect its historic commercial function at ground floor, with flats now accommodated above.

The rear elevation has undergone many alterations, including extensions, window replacements, and installation of commercial equipment, with visible cabling and pipework. Despite this, key architectural details remain, which are reflected in the original building’s frontage. These include a steeply pitched, half hipped roof, with overhanging eaves, together with the ornate clock tower rising above it. The tower is distinguished on all four sides by clock faces and dormer windows, capped off by a smaller pyramidal roof with a weathervane to its tip. These features influence the building’s architectural character, reinforcing its historic retail identity and defining it as a prominent local landmark. In doing so, ‘The Links’ makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA, as a locally listed building.

Amendments to the proposal included a reduction in the scale of the extension and the substitution of rooflights instead of dormers. However, the proposal would still span for a substantial width across the rear elevation, with a ridge and eaves height aligned to the original building, and a depth equal to the existing rear extension. Its scale and size would therefore result in an unduly large and dominant addition, disproportionate to the host building. This would subsume the main rear roofscape and add bulk, resulting in the loss of the narrow and linear form of the original roof. The legibility of the steeply pitched, half hipped roof and characteristic overhanging eaves would also be unacceptably eroded. This would detrimentally affect the few surviving rear original features and disrupt the architectural composition of the building, thereby reducing its significance as a local landmark.

The proposal would be sited at the rear and would preserve the principal elevation and the clock tower. Even so, it would still appear as a conspicuous and discordant addition from the rear car park, which is open to the public for supermarket parking and pedestrian access. It would also be visible from the adjacent dwellings’ rear gardens. Further views would be available from public vantage points at [address]. In any case, even if the proposal were not obvious in the public realm, its design would remain inappropriate to both the character and appearance of the CA.

Rooflights are common on surrounding dwellings but are typically modest in number. Those proposed here would be set within the roof slope and reflect the positioning of the proposed first floor windows below. However, this is not a feature present within the original, simple roofscape and the proliferation of them would appear cluttered and excessive. The poor quality of the existing rear elevation does not justify further harmful works in this location with the above in mind.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in the unsympathetic alteration of the locally listed building, and would neither preserve, nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Given its localised effect, the harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Even so, I am mindful that the conservation of the CA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the proposal’s public benefits.

The appellant states the appeal scheme would optimise the use of the upper floors, by improving the existing flats and contributing to the local housing supply through creating additional units. It is further stated the proposal would improve the appearance of the rear, to the benefit of the CA. However, as previously outlined, the proposal would neither preserve, nor enhance its character or appearance. Whilst some benefit would arise from upgrading the existing flats and the provision of new dwellings, in this instance, they carry only very limited weight given their number and would be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the CA.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan 2021 (LP); Policies DH1, DH3, DH(h) and DH(j) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan 2014 (RGLP) and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and to protect, conserve, or enhance the significance and character or appearance of heritage assets and locally listed buildings.

The proposal has been amended to lower and enlarge the rooflights to increase the range of views from them. However, outlooks would remain restricted due to their plane and angled orientation. Their reliance as a main source of outlook for the bedrooms would also diminish the quality of living for the future occupants. This harm would be further compounded by units F, G and I only having access to one other window of narrow and limited dimensions. Having adequate outlooks from bedrooms are important, particularly when conventional windows are lacking.

While opening rooflights would improve outlook, the mechanism for how they would open is not specified. In any case, keeping them open would not be an appropriate solution, as occupants may wish to close them for reasons of weather, noise, or privacy. Rooflights serving bedrooms exist in the area, but these are associated with dwellings that also benefit from standard windows in other accessible rooms.

For these reasons, the proposals would not provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants within proposed units F, G, H and [name], the scheme would conflict with Policy D6 of the LP. Amongst other things, this policy seeks for housing developments to address qualitative design aspects which include consideration of views from individual dwellings.

Policies DH1 and H5 of the RGLP and the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2016 has been referred to in the second reason for refusal. However, they are not applicable as they relate to housing design and do not refer to outlook. The policy mentioned above is sufficient to make a decision against the development plan on this main issue.

The Council cannot demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. Paragraph 11 thereof states that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development in such circumstances. Paragraph 11(d)(i) further outlines that, for decision taking, this means granting permission where development plan policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

For the purposes of paragraph 11, Conservation Areas are assets of particular importance as denoted by footnote 7. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the CA which is not outweighed. The application of the policies in Section 16 of the Framework provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 11d(ii) of the Framework are not engaged.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.