Appeal 6002153

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ground, first and second floor rear extension of the dwelling, with alterations to the roof including provision of roof lights. at [site address] , Camden, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/3429/P, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

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 host building and Elsworthy Conservation Area (ECA); - the setting and significance of Primrose Hill Registered Park and Garden; and - the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires when determining proposals in conservation areas that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. At paragraph 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), it sets out matters which should be taken into account, including sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

[address] Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] (ERCAAM) describes the ECA as characterised by its large amount of residential development of an affluent nature. The ECA is varied in its residential form with terraced townhouses, large semi-detached villas, and latterly large, detached houses following in a garden suburb pattern. The ERCAAM goes on to further describes the area as a wealthy suburb set in spacious, pleasant and leafy surroundings within easy reach of central London.

The ERCAAM places the appeal site within sub area 3, the ‘Willet Development’, a residential street where the properties are generally screened by flowering trees and beech hedging. The ERCAAM identifies this sub area as making a significant contribution to the ECA due to the green, leafy and open aspect of the area which enhances the setting of the houses. Furthermore, the buildings within this sub area are described in the ERCAAM as of strong group value due to their individuality, created by their detailed design. In addition, the houses also share common forms and details influenced by the [name] and [name] style which is further emphasised by the complementary palette of materials used. I consider the architectural diversity of the street created by the quality of its buildings set in verdant surroundings contributes to its coherent character making a positive contribution to the significance of the ECA.

The appeal dwelling is a striking building possessing a roof form which is typical of the Willet development styling and is reflected in the architectural composition and form of other Willet buildings in the surrounding area. The appeal dwelling’s asymmetric form due to its angled porch, numerous gable projections, catslide roof and rear dormer further reinforces its Willet development styling and makes a positive contribution to the significance of the ECA.

From the information before me and my observations onsite it is clear that the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling has undergone various alterations and extensions over time. The significant changes have diluted the characteristic features of the rear elevation compared with the front, which remains in keeping with other properties in the area. Therefore, the rear elevation does not make a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the ECA.

I concur with the previous Inspector1 that the two-storey elements of the proposals would fundamentally alter the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling, but the general form and features would work with the existing building. The proposed single storey extension would, in contrast, be intentionally contemporary in design, clad in high quality materials and with a more uniform footprint, creating a sleek and coherent finish. Whilst it would be different to the style and composition of the existing dwelling, it would clearly be read as a later contemporary addition. Given that the integrity of the rear elevation has already been reduced, I do not consider this itself to be harmful. It would be a different design with materials and form that would complement, but not be a pastiche, of the existing building and would provide visual interest to the much-altered rear elevation. 1 APP/X5210/D/25/3366350

I note the Council’s comments highlighting the value of the varied footprint of the appeal dwelling and how this contributes to the ECA. However, the existing footprint of the dwelling is not original due to the variety of later additions to its rear. As a result, I do not consider a further evolution of the footprint of the dwelling to be intrinsically harmful to the character and appearance of the ECA.

I acknowledge that there would be change to the dimensions, proportions and design of the rear of the appeal building as a result of the cumulative extensions. From my observations however, the scale and form of the resulting rear elevation would not be out of place against other surrounding development in this part of the ECA, which is generally characterised by large properties, many of which have been significantly extended or altered.

The proposed single storey extension would be partly visible from the front of the appeal site on [address] where glimpsed views could be gained between the appeal dwelling and No 47. However, because of the recessed position to the rear and its modest height, it would not be an unduly prominent feature in the street scene. These glimpsed views would also be typical of other additions to the rear of dwellings on [address], therefore the appeal proposals would be read in this context.

For the reasons above, therefore, the proposed additional massing to the appeal building would not appear unduly bulky or dominant and the proposal would not appear incongruous in its context. Accordingly, the proposed extensions would not diminish the contribution of the appeal property to the significance of the ECA.

The proposal would involve the removal of an apple tree at the rear of the site (T6) and a magnolia tree (T7) at the front. The Council has highlighted concerns regarding the removal of T7. [address] contains numerous very large, mature trees and the appellant proposes to replace the trees that are to be removed. Given the relatively small scale and stated condition of both T6 and T7, I consider that appropriate replacements would be a satisfactory approach to maintain the verdant character and appearance of the area. This can be secured by planning condition.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and the appearance of the host building as well as the character, appearance and significance of the ECA as a whole. It would therefore accord with Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) which include requirements for high quality development that respects local context and character, and that preserves or enhances conservation areas.

[address] is a Grade II Registered Park and Garden (‘RPG’) characterised by its varying topography due to its steeply rising hills and network of footpaths with occasional intervening trees. At its summit panoramic views of the City of London can be achieved. The boundary of the RPG is generally well screened by a variety of trees and dense foliage with only glimpsed views of the surrounding buildings such as those on [address] able to be gained. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, I find the quality and composition of the group of rear elevations, including the appeal building, and the generally verdant gardens to their rear complement the RPG and make a positive contribution to its setting, and thereby its significance.

I undertook my site visit in the winter, the time of the year where the coverage of vegetation would be expected to be at its sparsest. Even so, when viewing the appeal dwelling from the RPG views of the rear elevation were extremely limited due to the level of screening.

Due to the modest height of the single storey extension and the size of the garden of the appeal dwelling, the verdant qualities of the wider area would be retained even with the extensions proposed, subject to the proposed landscaping.

Because of the level of glazing proposed, there would be greater light spill from the proposal than at present. However, this is not an unusual situation in the area, as I observed that the properties backing onto the RPG have varying levels of glazing, with some possessing large areas such as the conservatory at neighbouring No 47. Consequently, a degree of light spill is already present in the area and is part and parcel of having a residential edge to the RPG. Furthermore, the degree of light spill visible from the RPG would be mitigated by the vegetation surrounding the site. The additional light spill from the appeal proposal would be read in this context and would not therefore adversely affect the setting of the RPG or diminish its significance.

On that basis, I am satisfied that the proposal would not detract from the existing views from the RPG or the relationship between the park and surrounding development. Therefore, I conclude that it would not harm the setting or significance of the [address] RPG. Consequently, I find no conflict with Policies D1 or D2 of the Local Plan which require development to respect local context and character and preserve or enhance the historic environment and heritage assets.

The proposed extension would be adjacent to the boundary with No 47. That property has a window and door in the facing flank which appear to serve the kitchen adjacent to the common boundary, and that structure has a glazed roof. I observed on my site visit that the appeal site and No 47 are separated by dense vegetation and a variety of different timber and brick boundary treatments. As a result, the existing situation is that the side window and door of No 47 have restricted outlook and light.

The proposal would introduce built form closer to, and deeper along the common boundary than currently exists. Due to the height of the extension, part would be visible above the common boundary. However, given that the outlook from, and light reaching the facing openings is already restricted, the additional height of the proposal would not significantly increase the sense of enclosure or reduce outlook from them compared with the existing situation. Furthermore, the room appears to have a window on the rear elevation, which would continue to provide an outlook across the rear garden, and both this and the glazed roof would provide access to light.

The sizeable rear garden of No 47 is surrounded by generously sized boundary treatments and a variety of verdant screening, including along the common boundary with the appeal site. The appeal proposals would be visible from the rear garden, however given its size and the presence of tall screening along the boundaries, it would not materially alter the existing sense of enclosure. Consequently, there would be no significant adverse impact on garden users in terms of outlook.

Therefore, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and light. It would therefore comply with Local Plan Policies A1 and D1 which, amongst other things, both seek to secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

Third parties have raised concerns regarding works to the party wall however this is not a matter within my remit when considering the appeal, as it is a civil matter covered by other legislation.

I have considered the suggested conditions against the tests set out in the Framework. I have made amendments where necessary to ensure compliance with these tests or for clarity, brevity or consistency.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I recommend a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Conditions to specify the materials, define the extent of demolition, ensure replacement tree planting as part of a landscaping scheme and to require protection for retained trees are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has recommended the provision of an updated Tree Survey and [name] retaining tree T7. However, as set out above I consider the mitigation and replacement measures set out by the appellant are sufficient to safeguard the ECA, so the condition is not necessary.

I also recommend a condition to require flank windows to the upper floors of the building to be obscure glazed and restricted opening to prevent overlooking, in the interests of neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions.

A condition securing a scheme to manage surface water is required to ensure the proposal does not increase flood risk and reduces the risk of flooding and adapts to climate change as required by Policies CC2 and CC3 of the Local Plan.

The Council recommends that a condition be imposed to require any other details affecting the elevations of the dwelling to be subject to its approval. It has not however explained what such details might be or demonstrated how such a condition would be necessary or precise. Therefore, I do not recommend that a condition to this effect is imposed.

The Council also recommend that a condition requiring a Construction Management Plan be provided in the event that multiple permissions are implemented at any one time. However, there is insufficient justification before me to demonstrate why such a condition is required, and no wording has been put to me setting out what the Council would include as part of this condition. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated to be necessary or reasonable, and I do not recommend that the condition be imposed.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would accord with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule.

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 2502 PL-001 Rev 0 Site Location Plan, 2502 PL-050 Rev 0 [name], 2502 PL-051 Rev 0 [name], 2502 PL-052 Rev 0 [name], 2502 PL-199 Rev 0 Proposed Site Plan, 2502 PL-200 Rev 0 [name], 2502 PL-201 Rev 0 [name], 2502 PL-202 Rev 0 [name], 2502 PL-300 Rev 0 [name] and 2502 PL-310 Rev 0 [name]

The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations and method statement set out in the ‘Trees and Construction: BS5837: 2015 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment & [name] by Indigo Surveys Ltd dated April 2024, reference 23182/AIA/A1.

The extent of demolition shall be limited only to that indicated on the approved plans including in particular nos 2502 PL-051 Rev 0 and 2502 PL- 052 Rev 0.

With the exception of the aluminium door system to the ground floor of the rear extension which shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no 2502 PL-300 Rev 0, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The first and second floor windows to the side elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be installed such that they are fitted with obscured glazing and no part of the window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant window is installed and the windows shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained in that form.

No development above ground floor slab level of the extensions hereby permitted shall commence until a scheme for the management of surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include incorporation of sustainable drainage systems and climate change adaptation measures appropriate to the development and a programme of implementation. The measures in that scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

No development above ground floor slab level of the extensions hereby permitted shall commence until a scheme of soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: details of all proposed planting; details of trees to be retained; new tree planting at a ratio of at least one (1) replacement tree for each removed as part of the development hereby permitted; a programme of implementation; and a maintenance scheme designed to ensure establishment of the planting. The planting shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved implementation programme and maintained in accordance with the maintenance scheme.

Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.