Appeal 6000726

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant provided amended plans with the appeal showing alterations to the internal layout of flats 17 and 18. While the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, in accordance with the judgment in Holborn Studios1 accepting the amended plans would not be unfair in this instance as the proposed amendments relate solely to internal changes so would not amount to a fundamental change to the nature of the development.

The council in its decision notice referred to policies in its development plan. The principle of development is established by Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (hereafter, the Order). It does not require that regard be had to the development plan in determining applications for prior approval. Consequently, I have had regard to its policies only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to the prior approval matters at issue in this case.

Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Order allows for development consisting of works for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats. This is subject to restrictions, including that prior approval be sought for the external appearance of the building and impact on the amenity of neighbouring premises including overlooking and privacy. Furthermore, Schedule 2 does not grant permission for any new dwellinghouse that does not comply with the nationally described space standard. 1 Holborn Studios Limited v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2017) EWHC 2823 (Admin)

The main issues are therefore: • The effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the building, • The effect on the amenity of neighbouring premises at 43A and [address] and 1 and [address] including overlooking and privacy, and also outlook; and, • [name] 17 and 18 would comply with the nationally described space standard.

The appeal property occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of Anerley Park and Anerley Park Road. Buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site are generally three to four storeys in height with some properties having lower ground floors, rooms in their pitched roofs or both. The overall effect creates a largely consistent roofline along Anerley Park and extending onto Anerley Park Road. The appeal property fits within this context as a four storey, flat roofed building with its eaves consistent with the established roofline in the street scene.

The appeal proposal would result in a substantial upward step in the roofline in a prominent location within the street scene. Whilst the proposal would be consistent with the appearance of the building, the combination of the height and siting would result in an incongruous appearance within the surrounding context.

While there are large trees around the site that provide some screening, these are less effective when not in leaf as was the case during my site visit. The screening effect is, in any case, limited to certain angles. Even when in full effect, the appeal property would still be visible as a prominent and dominant feature in the surrounding street scene, out of keeping with the established consistent character and appearance of the surrounding properties.

The appeal proposal would therefore result in an unacceptable effect on the external appearance of the building, contrary to condition A.2(1)(e) of Class A.

[name].2.(1)(g) of Class A states that the prior approval is required for a development such as the appeal proposal in relation to its impact on the amenity of the existing building and neighbouring premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light. The list of considerations is not a closed one, and the effect on the outlook of neighbouring properties is of the same kind as those specified as it directly relates to amenity.

Windows to flats 15 and 17 would directly overlook the garden to 43A and [address]. Whilst there is an existing relationship with the windows to existing flats in the appeal building the increased height would mean that these new windows would be sited above any intervening landscaping, even when it is in full leaf. The facing window to the kitchen/living window of flat 17 could be obscure glazed as that would be a dual-aspect room. However, outlook from the bedroom windows to these two flats could not be restricted in such a way as they would be the only windows to habitable rooms. The outlook from these windows would therefore result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers of 43A and [address].

The appeal building is a prominent feature as seen from [address]. As existing it is taller than any building in that road, and the proposed upward extension would make it substantially taller still. It would consequently be a still more prominent feature in the surrounding area, in particular when viewed from the nearest properties at 1 and [address] which face towards the appeal building, and 43A and [address] which has a garden and windows close to it. Given the proximity of the building, it would be a dominant and overbearing feature when seen from those properties.

While the occupiers of other properties in the surrounding area would not be unduly affected, the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupiers of 43A and [address], as well as those of 1 and [address]. The appeal proposal therefore conflicts with A.2(1)(g) of Class A. Internal space of flats 17 and 18

The appellant submitted amended plans with the appeal revising the internal layout of flats 17 and 18, reducing the size of the proposed bedrooms to single person occupancy. Consequently, these flats would comply with the nationally described space standards, and paragraph 3.(9A)(b) of the Order.

The appellant has referred to a previous application on the site for an upward extension of two storeys and suggested that the council was inconsistent in its assessment of the two proposals. Nonetheless, I have assessed the appeal proposal on its merits and in accordance with the requirements of the Order. The council’s findings in relation to that earlier application do not lead me to change my assessment of this proposal.

For the reasons set out above the proposed development would fail to comply with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.