Appeal 6002606

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a three storey pitched roof rear extension and internal rearrangements to provide 7no. apartments, 2no. offices, enclosed lift and fire escape, together with amended car park layout with cycle and waste storage buildings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/25/0145, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Within its first reason for refusal, the Council have cited the removal of historic chimneys above the rear service wing. These are annotated for demolition on the submitted plans. However, the evidence before me demonstrates that the removal of these chimneys was approved under a non-material amendment to a previous permission. On my site visit I saw that these chimneys have already been removed as part of the implementation of that application.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the conservation area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

Houses along [address] are typically large and set back from the street along a formal building line. Front boundary conditions differ, with some houses more visible than others. In the case of [site address] , the house is partially screened by low walling, hedging and trees.

The appeal site is located within the Royal [site address] Conservation Area (CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA covers a large part of the town including the town centre, parkland and several suburban districts. The appeal site and the surrounding properties along this section of [address] form a very distinctive part of the CA. The CA’s guidance document notes that the road is significant for its large, detached villas from the mid-19th century with their rendered facades, rusticated quoins, shallow pitched roofs, bay windows and tall chimney stacks. Emphasis is placed on the significance of its role as a formal gateway into the town centre.

In contrast, whilst the rear service wings are noted, they are sat lower (at mezzanine level), and are faced in bare or painted brickwork, generally of a more simple or utilitarian design. These secondary elevations are glimpsed down the side accessways and gaps between the buildings, but do not contribute significantly to the public frontage that is of particular significance to the CA. The appeal site is characteristic of and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and thus to its significance as a designated

The proposal is for a three storey extension to the rear of the existing service wing. Whilst the flank elevation and flat roof structure would be marginally visible from the street, the proposal would not, by reason of its position, detract from or diminish the importance of the principal street elevation. The overall depth of the original property, in conjunction with limited views between the buildings (restricted further by the single-storey side component of No 56) and the screening afforded by vegetation, would together minimise its prominence. Although deep, the proposed extension would remain suitably subordinate when considered against the historic depth of the original house, comprising both the principal structure towards the street, together with the rear service wing.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s Residential Design Guide (2018) ([name]). With regards matters of appearance, it is largely concerned with more publicly visible extensions. However, it does require development to seek overall design unity. The proposed massing replicates that of the service wing and introduces windows that broadly assimilate.

Design details that differ, include the wraparound glazing at the ground floor and the flat roofed lift/stair core. Largely these would be visible only to future occupiers and a limited number of surrounding neighbours. On my site visit I saw that a number of the properties along [address] had alterations to side elevations, including to windows and roof forms, in both historic fabric and rear extensions. These alterations did not distract from the character and appearance of the more prominent and lavish street facing elevations and would not be harmful in this instance. The proposal would have a neutral effect on, and would thereby preserve the significance of the CA.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the existing dwelling or the surrounding area and would preserve the character and appearance of the Royal [site address] Conservation Area, as required by Section 72(1) of the Act. As such, I find no conflict with Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029, and Policy RLS3 of the Royal [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020-2029. These policies, in summary, require development to reinforce or enhance the established urban character of streets and not lead to substantial harm or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset.

The original plan form of the appeal property and neighbouring [address] are broadly similar, and they sit roughly in line with one another. Separation is afforded through the side access route within the appeal site and the rear service wing to No 56 being located on its far side. Historically, the outlook and light to all windows in the rear elevation of No 56 would have always been affected to some degree by this layout. Following the previous implementation of a single-storey development to the side/rear of No 56, the ground floor windows are now orientated away from the appeal site.

The proposed development would extend the depth of the service wing further to the rear and would result in a longer side elevation towards No 56. The first floor rear facing window of No 56 would be at such a distance and separation from the appeal scheme that it would not harmfully affect the living conditions of existing occupiers of this neighbouring property.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s RDG SPD. It notes that breaches of the 45 degree line from affected habitable room windows, which occur at a significant distance will generally be considered not to result in material harm to light and outlook. Therefore, the proposed massing and bulk would not result in a tunnelling effect in conjunction with that neighbours own service wing when experienced from this first floor window.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 56 with particular regard to outlook and light. As such, it complies with Policy BE3 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011- 2029 which requires, amongst other matters, for development to not adversely impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents.

My attention has been drawn to the site’s planning history, including previously dismissed appeals. These former applications were for different proposals that did not reflect the same impacts on heritage and living conditions and therefore are not directly comparable with the scheme before me. Likewise, my attention has been drawn to a refused extension at [address]. This is a listed building where the legislative considerations are different when addressing heritage matters.

I acknowledge that neighbours have raised a number of concerns including in respect of character and appearance, trees, biodiversity, traffic, the setting of a precedent and wider impacts on living conditions such as noise and overlooking.

There is no dispute between the Council and appellant on these matters and I have no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to an alternative conclusion. In particular, I have dealt with matters of character and appearance above. There would be no increase in the number of dwellings as a result of the proposed development, leading to any increased impacts of noise or traffic movements. Measures to prevent overlooking are covered by condition. In respect of precedent, this is based on a hypothetical eventuality and no directly comparable sites to which this might apply were put forward.

Concerns over the office component of the development generating commercial activity on the site are noted. However, this is the subject of a condition restricting use to that of the occupants as an ancillary use and therefore do not alter my conclusions on these main issues.

The Council has suggested a set of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute, and have accordingly amended the wording of certain conditions proposed by the Council without altering their aim.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, in the interest of certainty (2).

A condition is necessary requiring materials to match in order to integrate the appearance of the proposed extension with that of the original building, in the interests of character and appearance (3). To ensure matters of character and appearance are satisfactorily addressed I have imposed a condition concerning window and roof light design (4). In the interest of preserving privacy, I have imposed a condition for obscure glazing on the upper floor windows towards the neighbouring property at No 56 (5). To ensure acceptable parking is provided I have imposed a condition requesting its implementation (6) and in connection with this, the provision of adequate electric vehicle charging points is also conditioned (7). In the interests of providing requisite waste storage areas, I have imposed a condition requesting their implementation (8). Finally, a condition is imposed to restrict the use of the office to ensure it is not used for independent commercial purposes (9).

Separately suggested conditions requesting windows to be of timber and details of rooflights to be of a conservation style have not been imposed as these are covered under other conditions. There is insufficient evidence before me to justify a request for single glazing.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed

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 the following approved plans: 54KR/PP/101 (Site Location Plan), 54KR/PP/102 (Proposed Block Plan), 54KR/PP/104 ([name]), 54KR/PP/106 ([name]), and 54KR/PP/108 (Proposed Site Plan

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

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the design of all windows and roof lights, including plans and elevations at a scale of 1:10 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Windows shall be timber construction and the roof lights of a conservation style. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all the windows at first and second floor in the north facing elevation have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the submitted drawings have been implemented. The laying out of car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be retained thereafter.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the details of the location and design of electric vehicle charging points have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These electric vehicle charging points shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the charging of vehicles.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the refuse storage areas shown on the submitted drawings have been implemented. These refuse storage areas shall be retained thereafter.

The office floorspace shall be used for ancillary purposes only in connection with the residential use of the building, and shall not be used for any independent commercial purpose.