Appeal 6002431

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of proposed development from the Council’s decision notice; however, I note it is expressed differently on other documents.

Since the Council’s determination of the planning application the property at the site has been added to the Royal Greenwich Local Heritage List as a locally listed building. That is a list of buildings of local heritage significance within the Borough. This does not alter the building from being identified by the local planning authority as a non-designated heritage asset.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - a) The loss of a non-designated heritage asset; b) The living conditions of future occupiers; and c) The living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers.

The building is a grand [name] dating from the 1860s. The building is not a statutory listed building, nor does it fall within a Conservation Area. However, since the determination of the planning application the Council has placed the property on its locally listed register. The list description indicates the building to be a “Charming example of the [name] typology. It has an historical association with the [name] and notable local families, the Pattison’s and the Roses, and illustrates aspects of the area’s suburban development. It holds townscape value due to its prominence, scale, and design.”

The building represents the early and historic development of this part of the area. It displays a high level of craftsmanship and composition, with brickwork detailing and ornamental decorations with an elegant entrance porch. These features, along with its dual principal elevations, set this building out as a standout property representing a highly attractive and distinctive archictural building within this suburban area. Whilst there have been some alterations to the building, the property retains its attractive qualities and contributes positively to the character of the street scene within which it is visually prominent. Clearly it is a well thought of building by the local community given the level of public interest received to the planning application supporting the retention of this building as an asset of special local interest.

The significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset derives from its history, as well as its architecture and character. The loss of this building would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the heritage of the area and the street scene appearance. As such, it would have a harmful effect upon the historical significance of the locality and would have a negative visual impact upon the character and appearance of the area given its visual importance as a landmark building, which the public hold in high regard.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would represent a harmful loss of a non-designated heritage asset. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan, Policies H5 and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (the Local Plan), the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to conserve and enhance the historic environment that contributes to the quality of place and to social wellbeing.

Units 2, 4 and 7 are single aspect north facing dwellings. These units would comprise open plan lounge/kitchen/dining living spaces with the northern windows being floor-to-ceiling height. Nonetheless, the units are deep in nature whereby light to those most internal areas from the points of light entry would be restricted by virtue of the distance from the light source. These units would not benefit from appropriate daylight or received direct sunlight during part of the day. This would be particularly so for unit 2 as there would be a significant change in land level at the rear of the site that would restrict light to this property, including that of a bedroom.

Units with gloomy living environments would not provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers. Whilst outlook and appropriate ventilation may be provided for the future occupiers, this does not overcome my concerns over light or justify the harm arising to the occupiers of these units. The appellant contends that light levels would be robust however I have not been presented with any compelling evidence or information that might support this view. As such, I do not consider that the future occupiers of these units would be provided with an appropriate standard of living environment.

The local planning authority has identified that units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would not host appropriately sized private amenity spaces for the types of dwellings proposed. On my reading it appears that the appellant accepts that some units fall short of the requisite size of outdoor space for a unit of their type and therefore do not comply with the relevant standards. The communal garden space to the rear of the site would have a sloping topography and is shown to be a wooded space. This would not provide suitable alternative outdoor amenity spaces to that of private rear gardens or balconies, nor would public parks or gardens as these spaces would not be private. Further to the above, the outdoor space relating to units 1 and 2 on the ground floor would be overlooked by the occupiers of the upper floor units from their balconies. Given the limited size and/or lack of privacy of a good number of the private amenity spaces acceptable living environments for future occupiers would not be achieved.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policies H5 and DH1 of the Local Plan, the Mayors of [name] and the [name]. These policies and SPDs that seek, amongst other matters, development to provide for dual aspect dwellings with a presumption against single-aspect north facing units, be of a design to provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new housing and to provide adequate private outside space.

No. [address] sits to the north-west of the site and contains an outrigger at the rear. The proposed development, although staggered in nature at the rear of the site, would extend the property considerably closer to the shared boundary of the site. No. 26 sits at a considerably lower land level to that of the appeal site and hosts a side facing window within the outrigger facing the site that is advised serves a kitchen for a ground floor flat. This is the only window serving this room. Whilst the appellant contends that kitchens should be considered a secondary glazing element the Council’s Urban Design Guide classes kitchens as habitable rooms. Given the overall size of the proposed development and its close proximity to the kitchen of No.26 there would be a reduction in light at his property. The proposal, including any new boundary screening, would also be a large and dominant feature in the outlook from the kitchen.

Any reduction in light to the kitchen would be harmful to the living conditions of the existing occupiers of this property and this would detract from the enjoyment of their habitable living environment. Furthermore, the occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. The visually overbearing impact of the development in such close proximity to the existing neighbouring occupiers would diminish the enjoyment of their residential living environment. Whilst the harm arising with regard to light and outlook would be limited to that of the occupiers of the existing adjoining ground floor property, the proposal would harm the enjoyment the existing occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policy DH(b) of the Local Plan and the [name]. These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to demonstrate that there would be no significant loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by reducing the amount of daylight, sunlight or privacy they enjoy or result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure.

The local listing of the property has taken place subsequent to the issuing of the decision notice by the Council. The local planning authority has explained that this was done as a response to an application for local listing that was submitted by neighbours. This is not a prohibited process, and an application can be made at any time.

The Appellant asserts that the Council acted unreasonably by introducing a fundamental constraint (heritage listing) only after the application was submitted thus contradicting the guidance given by the local planning authority at pre-application stage. The Council argues that the pre-application advice noted the building made a positive contribution but discussed the pathway for demolition and redevelopment. The appellant contends that the pre-application advice did not identify the building to be a potential non-designated heritage asset or worthy of local listing. It is contested that the right information is crucial to good decision-making and should have been provided at an early stage. Whilst the local planning authority acknowledges that this matter was not brought up at pre-application stage the advice given nonetheless indicated a preference for the building to be retained. This does not indicate the principle of demolition of the building to be acceptable.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites. As such, the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework should be applied.

The proposal would boost the supply of housing within the Borough and could provide well-constructed family homes in as sustainable location. The proposal would provide ecological enhancements, as well as a car-free development with secure cycle spaces. The development would optimise an existing brownfield site and remove an energy-inefficient structure replacing it with a development that includes sustainable attributes, such as, a solar roof system. These would bring about economic, social and environmental benefits as part of the proposed development.

The adverse impacts of the proposed development as a result of the loss of a non-designated heritage asset and those harms to existing and future occupiers living conditions attract substantial weight. Even if the housing shortfall is substantial the adverse impact of the proposed development attracts substantial weight and therefore significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework when taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.