Appeal 6000847

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.

The main issues are: - The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area, and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the West Greenwich Conservation Area (WGCA) and - the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to the provision of adequate outdoor amenity space.

The appeal site is a three storey end terrace property situated on [address]. The appeal dwelling possesses a characteristic ground and first floor bay window to the front elevation with a mansard roof and front façade balcony to its front elevation. To the rear elevation is a modestly proportioned dormer to its roof space. The appeal property also possesses a single storey conservatory to its rear. The appeal site is part of a terraced grouping of four other properties which all share a uniformity in their proportionality and architectural composition which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is located within the (WGCA) and the buffer zone of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (WHS). I have therefore approached this appeal in the context of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the WGCA. The WHS is a heritage asset of the highest significance, recognised internationally to be of outstanding universal value.

[address] is an important historical street comprising a range of historical buildings, including listed and locally listed buildings. The significance of the WGCA, in so far as it relates to this appeal, is the architectural value of the historical buildings, including the appeal property, and how their layout and composition relate to the evolution of the area. The appeal property is neither listed or locally listed. However, it currently contributes positively to the WGCA, as it forms part of a uniformed terrace with a close frontage to the street. The buildings on [address] positively respond to the gradual rising topography in their scale, massing and raised decorative party walls which is a particularly distinctive characteristic of the areas urban grain.

The proposed two storey side extension element of the proposal would be set back from the appeal dwellings front elevation and subservient in its height. However, through virtue of its siting and width it would erode the important spacing and weaken the strong design feature of the raised party wall between the appeal dwelling and No.27. Whilst there would be a small gap maintained between the properties the existing consistent rhythm and spacing between the differing property styles on [address] would be eroded regardless of whether or not a former PROW was the original design justification for the gap.

Due to its set back behind the appeal dwellings principal elevation, the two storey side extension element of the proposal would be mainly visible in the street scene in close range views from both directions on [address] and at the junction with [address]. However, in these views the loss of the spacing between the dwellings would be evident.

Furthermore, whilst the proposal also adopts architectural similarities to the host dwelling as well as matching materials its scale, massing and particularly its height would appear at odds with the built pattern on [address] with the height of built form gradually rising with the topography to create a stepped effect. This incongruity would be further exacerbated by its fenestration which fails to compliment that present in the existing terrace in regard to its proportionality.

The single storey wraparound extension would be read in conjunction with the two storey side element resulting in a significantly increased footprint to the appeal dwelling. This would result in the appeal dwelling appearing at odds with the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, due to its scale and position, the extensions as a whole would be readily visible from the front, side, and rear within the public realm. As such, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and is therefore considered unacceptable.

The removal of the existing conservatory to the rear and its replacement with a more architecturally appropriate single storey addition is noted. However, whilst its removal would be a benefit the replacement extension would be harmful to the WGCA as I have explained above which does not outweigh the harm identified. As a result, this limits the weight I can afford the removal of the conservatory.

Turning to the WHS it is focused in the core of [name], including the [name], National Maritime Museum, the Royal Park and Greenwich Town Centre. Much of the surrounding area is also of significant architectural and historical importance and is covered by three conservation areas, one being the WGCA where the appeal property is located. The Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS arises largely from the ensemble of the public and private buildings and their architectural value, as well as the landscape design of the Royal Park, which preserve a remarkably high degree of authenticity.

The appeal property is located in the buffer zone of the WHS. One of the main threats facing the WHS is from development pressures within the town that could impact adversely on its urban grain. However, the proposal would not affect the urban grain of the area, and in the context of the WHS, it would comprise a modest amount of development with limited visibility. Therefore, despite identifying harm to the significance of the WGCA, the effect of the proposal on the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS would be negligible, and it would not compromise the ability to appreciate this value or the authenticity and integrity of its assets.

I find that the harm to the significance of the WGCA would be less than substantial. In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), taking into account the nature and scale of the proposal, I consider the harm to be at the lower end of less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (such as the WGCA), this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I give great weight to the assets’ conservation. Any benefit deriving from improvement to the condition of the existing dwelling, and consequently to housing stock in the area, is of very limited weight, and does not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal would therefore fail to preserve the character or appearance of the WGCA. Conflict arises with the expectations of section 72(1) of the Act, the historic environment policies in the Framework, and policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan and DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014). Together these require development to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The Council raise concerns regarding the proposed air source heat pump creating unacceptable noise for neighbouring occupiers. As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted technical information for the model the appellant has considered. However, in the absence of a noise assessment I cannot be sure that the living conditions of surrounding occupiers would be sufficiently safeguarded.

Attaching a planning condition to a grant of planning permission to require the provision of a noise assessment produced prior to commencement of development would not provide a solution as the results may show unacceptable levels of noise from the proposed ASHP when installed in the site specific location, which could not be mitigated.

In regard to rear extensions, paragraph i.40 of the [name] states that rear extensions must not compromise external amenity space and should seek to preserve a useful and proportionally sized outside space in relation to the intended number of occupants of the dwellings that use the garden. Paragraph i.41 goes on to state that no less than 50% of the original rear amenity space should be retained by any new extension, cumulatively with any existing extensions.

As acknowledged by the Council a garden space of 56% would be retained in line with i.41 of the [name]. In addition, the area of garden to be lost is either the side access to the rear of the appeal dwelling or a very thin section of garden that did not appear to be particularly usable. With this taken into account the amount of usable garden space does not materially differ from the existing.

[name] have not found harm in regard to the living conditions of future occupiers of the development. I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in regard to noise. The proposal would therefore not accord with Policies D13 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) which require developments to not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers amongst other things.

I note the appellant’s concerns regarding how the Council handled the planning application. However, such matters are not within my remit in determining this s78 appeal. I have assessed the proposal on its own merits based on the evidence before me. I have had regard to the appellant’s submission that there is a degree of support. However, any letters of support are a neutral factor in the balance and does not preclude a full and proper assessment of the planning merits of the case.

The proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. This harm would not be outweighed by the lack of harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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