Appeal 6002239

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 issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Belsize Conservation Area (BCA).

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.

This part of the BCA is characterised by its tight urban grain and historic origins as well as the architectural quality of buildings. The relationship between the different buildings and streets is key to the area’s rhythm. The terraced group that the appeal dwelling is part of all possess varying openings and window proportions but have a consistency in their two-storey form with only the prominent [address] breaking the rhythm of the scale and massing due to its front gable projecting towards the street. In this regard, I find that the form and siting of the group make some positive contribution to the BCA.

The appeal dwelling appears to have been constructed in the 1980s and holds a simple appearance through virtue of its brick construction, shallow pitched roof and lack of detailing in comparison to other properties in the area. The dwelling also possesses a parapet wall which generally conceals the pitched roof form when seen from in front of the property. The Belsize Conservation Area Statement (BCAS) identifies the appeal building as making a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the BCA.

The proposed roof extension would result in an increase in ridge height and introduction of a mansard style extension to form a second floor to the rear which would occupy the entire width of the rear elevation. The resultant development would appear as a large, box-like and dominant addition to the rear elevation as well as adding significant bulk and height to the rear part of the roof. This would substantially alter the existing dwelling’s character and design and would be visible from neighbouring properties.

Whilst views of the proposal would be limited when directly in front of the appeal site, a longer view would be possible along [site address] allowing an appreciation of the proposed form and roof shape. Because the height of neighbouring roof steps down, the increased height and altered pitch of the roof would be evident above the parapet of No [address].

Currently, although the pair of dwellings are not symmetrical, they share materials, detailing and a common roof pitch and height, which gives them a clear visual relationship. The marked increase in height and bulk and the changed pitch of the roof would mean that the proposal would appear as an awkward, prominent addition and a contrasting element within the simple form of this terrace. This would erode the two-storey rhythm of dwellings in the terrace and harmfully alter the relationship with the prominent front gable of No 67. Accordingly, the proposal would diminish the appearance of this group and harm the appearance of the BCA and thereby its significance.

The proposed additional storey would be clad in appropriate materials and would not erode the front parapet, which is a key feature of this terrace. However, this would not outweigh the harm resulting from the proposed roof form. Furthermore, the proposed windows to the rear elevation at roof level would be sizeable and would fail to respond to the buildings hierarchy of size resulting in them appearing overly dominant. Whilst this elevation cannot be appreciated from the public realm it is visible from multiple neighbouring properties, and the erosion of this detailing would further harm the significance of the BCA.

The appellants have referred to roof alterations at 63a and 63b Belsize Lane1 where an additional storey has been erected on both halves of a pair. Whilst these are close to the appeal site they form part of a separate terrace of buildings. Furthermore, as the works have been undertaken on both the dwellings their visual relationship has been maintained, unlike the appeal scheme which would be read as isolated works within its terraced group. As a result, I do not consider the presence of those roof additions to be comparable with the appeal scheme.

Consequently, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA and would detract from the contribution of this group of buildings to its significance. In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), the level of harm to the significance of the BCA as a whole would be less than substantial and at the lower end of that scale, but is nevertheless a matter which attracts considerable importance and weight. Policy 1 2004/3751/P D1 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) and paragraph 215 of the Framework require such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would provide additional high quality family accommodation, making efficient use of previously developed land in a sustainable location. It would contribute towards improving the local housing stock and provision of family housing and generate some economic benefits. However, as the proposal relates to a single dwelling only, I afford these matters limited weight and they would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the BCA.

The Framework supports opportunities for upward extensions but only where they are consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties, which is not the case here. It further sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Therefore, given the harm identified above, the proposal would not benefit from the Framework presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Therefore, there are no public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm to the BCA, and the development would conflict with Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan. Amongst other things, these seek to deliver development which is of high-quality design and preserves or enhances the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The absence of harm to neighbouring living conditions is a neutral matter which does not weigh in favour of the proposal, as is the lack of objections from a specified neighbouring property. The Council’s handling of the case has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the scheme.

The Council has cited the London Plan 2021 in its reason for refusal but has not referred me to a specific policy of that Plan. Therefore, it has not been determinative in my recommendation.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations sufficient to outweigh that conflict and justify granting permission in conflict with the plan. 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.