Appeal 6002570

Applications for costs have been made by [name] against the Council of the Royal Borough of [site address] and are the subject of separate

As set out in the banner headings, this decision letter addresses two appeals at the same site. The appeals both relate to similar proposals, although the precise nature of the schemes varies slightly. Each appeal has been determined against its specific considerations, although the common issues are addressed together to ensure conciseness and to avoid duplication.

Appeal A relates to the Council’s failure to determine the planning application within the statutory timescale, and Appeal B relates to the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission. As no formal decision was issued by the Council for the Appeal A case, the Council’s Statement of Case sets out the reasons why permission would likely have been refused. I have had regard to those putative reasons in identifying the main issue. Appeal Decisions 6002570 and 6003337

The main issue in the case of both appeals is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name] and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a flat occupying the ground and lower ground floors of a building within a terraced crescent. To the rear, the buildings within the crescent, and those in the adjoining streets of [address] and [address], are served by a communal garden with lawns, trees and vegetation. The appeal property currently accesses this space via a door from the ground floor lobby, which provides communal access to all flats within the building.

Both appeals relate to the formation of a rear access door at upper ground floor level, together with associated alterations including railings and steps. The works would involve adapting an existing rear window opening to provide access from the appeal property towards the communal rear patio and garden area.

The appeal site lies within the [name] and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area (the CA). Its significance derives principally from the coherent and carefully composed street frontages and the formal architectural character of its terraces. Rear elevations generally display a greater degree of variation in fenestration, form and detailing, resulting from a range of historic alterations, while retaining architectural interest in their composition. In this context, the appeal property is broadly typical of the prevailing form of development within the CA.

The Council’s officer report for the Appeal B scheme concluded that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the building, the terrace group and the wider CA, and recommended that planning permission be granted. However, the planning committee reached a different conclusion and refused the application. The Council’s appeal case emphasises that the proposal would disrupt the visual rhythm of the rear elevation, create imbalance and appear incongruous, particularly within a part of the terrace said to be relatively unaltered.

The works would be confined to the area around an existing rear window opening and would be appropriately designed in the context of the prevailing form of development. They would appear as coherent and legible alterations to the rear elevation, and neither proposal would involve any significant change to the scale, bulk or massing of the building. The introduction of a door within the existing opening would therefore result in only a limited change to the overall composition of the elevation. Having had full regard to the concerns of the Council and interested parties, and based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I do not find that either proposal would result in harm.

I acknowledge the concerns that the new opening would appear more prominent than the existing window and could be perceived as a principal access when viewed from the rear garden. However, the alteration would remain within the width of the existing opening and would be read in the context of an already varied rear elevation. The existing communal entrance would also remain physically and visually distinct. Subject to appropriate conditions controlling materials, painted timber detailing and metal railings, I do not find that the proposed door and steps Appeal Decisions 6002570 and 6003337 would appear disproportionately grand or would undermine the legibility of the rear elevation.

I also note the distinction drawn by the Council and interested parties between properties with direct garden access in the area, including the suggestion that such examples are often associated with single dwellings rather than flats. However, I am not persuaded that the internal arrangement of a property would be legible in the rear elevation, or that this distinction would materially influence the character of the terrace. In this context, I am not convinced that the provision of a direct access to a flat would, in itself, result in visual or heritage harm.

The rear elevations within the terrace and surrounding area display a varied and irregular arrangement of openings, including enlarged windows and doors. In light of this, I do not find there to be a sufficiently uniform or ordered fenestration pattern to the extent that the introduction of the proposed access would disrupt visual rhythm or create harmful imbalance. Rather, the variation in openings is itself a characteristic of these rear elevations.

I have also had regard to the fact that the proposals would be visible from the shared rear garden and from neighbouring dwellings. However, the weight to be given to such views must be proportionate to their townscape and heritage significance. In this case, the works would be seen within a private rear garden context, against rear elevations which already display a varied arrangement of openings and access features. Visibility from private viewpoints would not, in itself, make the proposals harmful, and I do not find that the limited visual change would detract from the character or appearance of the area or the significance of the CA.

I accept that the immediate part of the terrace may have experienced fewer comparable alterations than some other sections. However, that does not mean it must remain unchanged or that any alteration would necessarily be harmful. The statutory duty is to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In applying that duty, I have considered the contribution made by the appeal building and its rear elevation, as well as the character of the wider rear garden context. The evidence demonstrates that variation to rear elevations is an established feature of this part of the CA. In that context, and given the limited and appropriately detailed nature of the works, I find that both schemes would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the proposals in both appeals would preserve the character and appearance of the host building, the terrace group and the wider CA. They would therefore not harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. As no heritage harm would arise, it is not necessary to undertake a balance of heritage harm against public benefits under the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The proposals would therefore accord with Policies CD1, CD2, CD4, CD10 and CD15 of the New Local Plan Review July 2024 (the LP), which collectively require development to be well-designed, functional and legible, to incorporate appropriate detailing and materials, to avoid harm to views, and to preserve or enhance the significance of conservation areas. The proposals would also accord with the relevant provisions of the Framework, which have similar aims. Appeal Decisions 6002570 and 6003337

Interested parties raise concerns that the proposals would erode the communal nature of the rear garden, give preferential access to the appeal property, and diminish the ability of other residents to use and enjoy the space.

However, neither proposal would result in the loss of any part of the communal garden, nor would they physically obstruct access to it. The introduction of a door, steps and railings would not prevent continued shared use of any part of the communal area. Accordingly, I find no persuasive evidence that the proposals would materially diminish the availability or function of the garden as communal amenity space.

I recognise that interested parties are concerned that the new access would alter the way in which the patio area is used, including the positioning of outdoor furniture and the provision of a direct route between [site address] and the garden. However, the submitted schemes would not remove any part of the communal garden or patio, nor would they introduce any fixed enclosure or physical barrier preventing continued communal use. On the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the proposals would make the communal patio unusable or result in its effective privatisation.

I have taken into account the concerns that the proposals would provide [site address] with an additional access point and that this would be unusual or inequitable when compared with other residents. However, I am not convinced that the number of access points serving a particular residential unit would determine planning harm. The relevant question is whether the physical works would cause harm to character, appearance, heritage significance or living conditions. For the reasons given, I find that they would not.

Some interested parties consider the proposals unnecessary given the existence of an alternative access. However, in this case, the planning system is only concerned with the acceptability of development in land use and design terms, rather than the need for a particular form of development.

Concerns are also raised regarding potential precedent and impacts on community cohesion. While these are noted, each proposal must be determined on its own merits. Any future proposals would be assessed against the development plan and relevant considerations at that time. I have not been presented with clear evidence that planning harm would arise in this respect.

I also note concerns regarding the number and timing of applications and appeals, and comments about the appellant’s motives. However, the appellant was entitled to pursue planning applications and appeals through the statutory process. The timing of applications and the perceived motivation for the development do not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the schemes before me.

I note that none of these matters formed part of the Council’s reason for refusal in Appeal B, or the putative reasons set out for Appeal A, which are confined to character and appearance. The Council’s appeal submissions also find that the proposals would retain acceptable living conditions for neighbouring occupiers and would not materially affect the enjoyment of the communal garden. Having regard to all the evidence and my observations, I find no compelling reason in the matters raised by interested parties to reach a different overall conclusion. Appeal Decisions 6002570 and 6003337

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the requirements of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, amending or omitting them where necessary to ensure full compliance with those tests.

For both appeals, conditions relating to the statutory time limit and approved plans are necessary in the interests of certainty. Further conditions requiring the materials to match those on the existing building, the doors to be timber framed and painted, and for the railings to be black painted cast metal, are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given, the development proposals subject to both appeals would accord with the development plan, and there are no other considerations to indicate that the appeals should be determined other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out in my formal decisions.