Appeal 6003183

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form confirms that the development has been completed and I was able to see this during my site visit. The development appears to be in accordance with the plans before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal property comprises a top-floor flat within a three-storey red brick block characterised by stepped elevations, sloping tiled roof forms with rooflights and raised brick parapets, which together create a uniform and symmetrical appearance. Nearby residential blocks to the north share the same architectural approach resulting in a coherent and consistent group of buildings.

To the south and west, two-storey traditional terraced houses along [address] lie within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of the CA derives from its terraces of small, well detailed houses which remain largely unaltered and have a distinct cottage character. Although the development would be visible from parts of the CA, it relates to a more modern building and does not front the CA. The development therefore does not harm the significance of the CA.

The development removes the characteristic sloping roof form and raised brick parapets, replacing them with an extended brick front elevation and a flat roof. It also introduces a new window with proportions and fenestration that does not reflect the established pattern of the elevation. Owing to its position on the front elevation, the development is prominent in the street scene and visible from nearby properties. Overall, the alterations introduce a poor quality, incongruous form of development that disrupts the rhythm, symmetry and defining characteristics of the host building, eroding the detailing which is reflected in other buildings along the street.

My attention has been drawn to other properties in the wider area incorporating varied roof forms, including dormers and other roof alterations. However, these are not directly comparable in terms of the works undertaken or the host buildings, and I do not know the circumstances under which they were constructed or their status with regard to planning permission. Moreover, from my observations, there appear to be no examples of similar roof alterations that affect the immediate context of the appeal site.

For the above reasons, therefore, I find that the development results in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy D1 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) which, amongst other things, seeks to secure high quality development which respects local context and character, uses appropriate detailing and materials, and avoids poor design that misses opportunities to enhance the area.

The refusal reason cites general conflict with the London Plan 2021. However, no specific policies have been identified and, therefore, it is unclear from the evidence how any conflict would arise.

The appellant contends that the previously approved scheme (LPA reference 2022/4894/P) was not capable of safe or practical implementation, and that the works carried out were a modest response intended to secure a compliant structure, improve the internal layout and make efficient use of the roof space. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm identified above, nor has it been demonstrated that this approach represents the only means of subdividing the existing bedroom to provide two bedrooms to meet the stated need for family accommodation.

I acknowledge that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of any neighbouring residents and the appeal property is not a designated heritage asset. However, these are neutral factors which do not weigh in the development’s favour.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.