Appeal 6001177

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for removal of the existing second floor front side-facing dormers, rebuild the existing first floor front dormers to match the existing dormers, move the rear first floor rear elevation back 1.5m and rebuild the roof with a lower pitch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1107/HD, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos: MWBB_v0101 A1AC_0101xk, MWBB_v3701 A2AE_0101pae, MWBB_v3701 A2AE_0201pae, MWBB_v3701 A2AE_0301pae, MWBB_v3701 A2AE_0401pae, MWBB_v3701 A2BE_0101pae, MWBB_v3701 A2BE_0301pae, MWBB_v3701 A2CE_0101pae, and MWBB_v3701 A2CE_0301pae.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

I have taken the description of development from the application form, and have simplified the description in my decision above to remove the words ‘to suit’ which do not relate to acts of development.

The appeal site is within Blackheath Park Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The proposal before me follows the refusal of two previous applications and their subsequent dismissal at appeal. The first was for the ‘demolition of existing rear extension and construction of a single-storey rear extension, front side porch extension and installation of new windows’ (Ref 3317131). The more recent application and appeal dismissal was for the ‘construction of a 2 storey rear extension and front porch enlargement; removal of existing rear dormers and two side-facing front dormers; construction of a new rear dormer extension; replacement of windows to front, rear and side; other associated external alterations’ (Ref 3351151) I have had regard to these previous decisions in the determination of this appeal and return to them below.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the host dwelling and Blackheath Park Conservation Area.

The appeal site is situated on [address], within the CA. The Blackheath Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2013) identifies that the significance of the CA is derived from the quality and diversity of its housing, together with the harmonious relationship between dwellings and the landscape on the long and broad tree-lined avenues. The Appraisal goes on to identify that the character of the CA is defined by roads with restricted access and large historic or bespoke twentieth century detached houses and a quiet and suburban character which creates a sense of grandeur and exclusivity.

[address] is a wide residential tree lined street. The appeal site is situated on the northern side of the street, with views of Blackheath Park to the southern side of the street. This relationship between the dwelling and Blackheath Park contributes to the significance of the CA. The appeal site comprises a detached Arts and Crafts style dwelling with a distinctive symmetrical roof arrangement which has a steeply sloped roof with low eaves and a projecting half-hipped roof, which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. The rear of the dwelling, like many others on the street, is not readily visible from public views, but is visible to neighbouring occupiers in private views.

The proposal seeks, among other things, to extend the dwelling at first floor and attic level, adding volume to the roof structure and increasing the depth of the roof, altering its pitch on both the front and rear elevations. The appeal proposal would also alter the dormer windows on the rear elevation.

The 2 previous appeals on the site were for a similar scope of development, although they differ from the proposal before me. I have been provided with an extract from a plan of the side elevation of the more recent appeal, showing that it principally differs from the appeal before me in terms of the design of the rear elevation at first floor and attic level. The Inspector of the more recent appeal concluded that at first floor and attic level, the alterations to the rear of the property would unbalance the form of the existing dwelling which would have an unacceptable effect. From the extract of the plan from this previous appeal, it is evident that the scale of the rear extension has been reduced from that previously proposed.

To accommodate the upper-level extension, the pitch of the front and rear roof slope would be altered to become shallower. The limited distance between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring dwellings, No 85 and No 89, mean that the side profile of the appeal site is difficult to appreciate in its entirety. Given that the dwelling is primarily viewed from the front in public views, and rear from private views, rather than side on from an angle, the change in roof pitch would not be readily noticeable, and would not significantly alter the distinctive T shaped roof form. Despite the altered pitch, the low eaves height, Arts and Crafts style, and overall effect of the distinctive roof which would be retained it would remain as a positive contribution to the CA.

The upper-level extension would be the full width of the dwelling and therefore greater than half the width of the plot. [name] agree that the extension would not be small scale, and that no other house in this part of [address] has been extended in the same way, given that the effect of the distinctive roof would be retained, the extension would by sympathetic to the original character of the building. As such, the extension would not overwhelm the existing building owing to its uniformity across the whole roof slope which reflects the distinctive massing of the existing roof.

The dwelling has existing dormer windows on the rear roof slope at first floor with a later addition of dormer windows at attic level. The proposal would retain the dormers on the first and attic level, which would have a similar profile to the existing formers, albeit marginally altered to be achieve a symmetrical appearance across the rear roof slope. The dormers at attic level would be moved slightly higher than the existing dormers, although they would still be set below the ridge line of the existing dwelling, and set back from the side elevations and eaves. As such, the proposed rear dormers would have a balanced appearance which would preserve the overall symmetry of the dwelling as a whole.

The existing single storey rear extension, which relates awkwardly to the rest of the dwelling, would be removed and replaced by a full width single storey rear extension, which has extant planning permission (Ref 23/0287/HD). Even cumulatively with the other proposed alterations, the single storey rear extension would consolidate the rear elevation, reinforcing the symmetrical appearance of the dwelling, a characteristic feature of the dwelling.

The appeal also seeks to replace the existing windows. While the window detailing would be altered through the simplification of the window pane arrangement, a multi-pane design would be retained. The size of the windows on the front elevation would also remain consistent with the existing windows. As such, the window alterations would reflect the character of the existing dwelling.

For the above reasons, I conclude that there is no harm to the significance of the CA. The development preserves the character and appearance of the CA and accords with Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) and Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan (2021). Collectively, they seek to protect and enhance heritage assets, ensuring that residential extensions are of a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality. The development also complies with Chapters 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it requires consideration to be given to the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, and great weight to be given to the assets conservation. Given my conclusion, it has not been necessary to balance harm as I have found none.

The proposal would comply with the guidance contained within the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2023) which requires proposals to respect the original architectural features and detailing of the dwelling.

Interested parties refer to the risk of precedent, if the proposal were to be allowed. I see no reason why the allowing of this proposal would undermine the Councils ability to exercise its judgment in relation to similar development proposals on this or other sites, especially because each chase is determined on its own merits and because each site will have different constraints and opportunities. Moreover, because I have found the scheme acceptable on design grounds it will not set a harmful precedent.

I have taken account of the concerns raised by residents and interested parties. In terms of living conditions, the proposal would not increase the number or size of windows and first floor or attic level such that it would increase overlooking into neighbouring properties. The increased mass would also not have a significant impact on light entering into neighbouring dwellings given the orientation of the appeal dwelling and the wide and open aspect to the rear.

A concern was raised about the increased carbon footprint as a result of the proposal. However, this increase would be limited by virtue of the limited size of the extension in comparison to the existing dwelling. Finally, as the proposal relates to an extension, the level of noise and disturbance which would be experienced by neighbouring occupiers during the construction phase would be relatively short lived, and not to an excessive level that would have a harmful impact on the neighbouring occupiers.

To meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I have also imposed a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. To ensure that the proposal respects the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing, as suggested by the Council, is necessary.

The Council suggested a condition requiring the new windows on the west elevation to be obscure glazed and non-opening, in the interests of the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants. However, plan no MWBB_v3701 A2BE_0101pae details that the new ground floor windows will be fitted with obscure glass. One of the windows will be non-opening while the other is openable 1.7m from floor level, which would be acceptable in respect to the privacy of the neighbouring occupants. Given that I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the proposed plans, I do not find that a separate condition would be necessary.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the Framework and all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.