Appeal 6004158

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on flood risk, with particular regard to long-term maintenance of the [name]; and, • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed building, [name], 87 [site address] , and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Edward III’s Rotherhithe Conservation Area.

The River Thames runs in close proximity to the north of the appeal site. The site is within [name] 3, with defence against flood risk provided by the [name] (the Defence). An extract of the statutory map of the Defence submitted by the Environment Agency (EA) demonstrates the close proximity of the appeal building to the existing visible extent of the flood defence structure which lies between the site and the Thames. The EA estimates the existing setback between the appeal building and the Defence to be some 4 metres.

Policy P68 of The Southwark Plan 2019-2036 (2022) (‘SP’) and Policy SI12 of the London Plan (‘LP’) relate to flood risk. These policies set out that development proposals adjoining flood defences should be set back from those defences to allow for any foreseeable future maintenance and upgrades in a sustainable and cost-effective way.

The EA’s Thames Estuary 2100 Plan outlines the action needed to maintain adequate flood protection for areas located within the [name], accounting for climate change. In order to protect against rising sea levels, the Defence is required to be raised by approximately 50cm by 2050 and then a further 50cm by 2090, which is within the proposal’s estimated lifespan of 50 to 100 years.

The proposal would project forward of the appeal building’s river-facing elevation, bringing the built form of the appeal building closer to the Defence. The extension would also infill an open space between the appeal building and the neighbouring building, [name]. Therefore, the proposal would significantly reduce the amount of open space around the appeal building that is available to allow working on the maintenance and upgrade works of the Defence. Although the existing setback from the Defence does not adhere to the 10 metres advocated by Policy P68 of the SP, this does not automatically justify the impediment posed by further encroachment resulting from the proposal.

The appellant contends that the proposal had been misunderstood as blocking an existing access from the road to the Thames. However, nothing in the evidence before me indicates that this is the position of the Council or the EA. Overall, the proposal would prejudice the ability to effectively access, maintain and upgrade the [name], thereby conflicting with the objectives of development plan policies that seek to ensure long-term flood resilience.

The EA has suggested 2 planning conditions to be imposed, should the appeal succeed. The first suggested condition would require a detailed design of all new structures and a scheme to ensure access, protection and maintenance of the Defence. The second would require a scheme that demonstrates that all structural components of the Defence will be improved to have a lifetime to match that of the proposal.

Having regard to the tests for planning conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), I am not satisfied that the suggested conditions would be reasonable for the following reasons. The first suggested condition assumes that adequate access can be provided. However, the evidence does not demonstrate this. There is only a finite area of space between the appeal building and the Defence. If the space proved insufficient, the condition would prevent the development from being implemented and hence it would be unreasonable to impose it.

The second suggested condition relates to the entire Defence, which is a significant structure. The appellant’s final comments indicate their willingness to accept this so far as it relates to the “the extent of the sea wall beside the site”, which I find to underscore the lack of precision as to what area this condition requires to be improved. There is a clear risk that the work identified to be required by the EA could be highly onerous in relation to the specific, minor form of development before me. On this basis, I do not consider that imposing conditions along those lines could overcome the identified harm.

Thus, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would avoid a harmful effect on flood risk, with particular regard to long-term maintenance of the [name]. The proposal would therefore conflict with relevant provisions of Policy P68 of The Southwark Plan 2019-2036 (2022) (‘SP’).

The appeal site occupies the end position in a terrace of 10 houses (collectively, ‘National Terrace’), all of a consistent townhouse design arranged over 4-storeys with garages at the lower floor. There is a column supported balcony at its rear, which is a recurring feature across the terrace.

An area of open space separates the appeal building from the adjoining [name], 87, [site address] (hereafter ‘[name]), a grade II listed former warehouse now used as flats. At the [site address] streetscene, that space is used for communal car parking and bin storage beyond which is a timber gate and brick wall topped with soft landscaping, which also bounds an area of yard to the rear of the appeal building.

The site falls within the Edward III's Rotherhithe Conservation Area (the CA), a designated heritage asset. As the proposal is in a conservation area and proximate to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or from development within its setting and that this should have clear and convincing justification.

The extent of the CA boundary was extended to include the site and neighbours to its west, including [name]. As the Council’s 2013 Conservation Area Appraisal sets out, a large proportion of the CA boundary is drawn around open land publicly displaying the low-lying archaeological remains of [address], a Scheduled Monument some distance to the opposing side of National Terrace, and around [address] which connects Southwark Park to the Thames. The boundary also extends to part of the river foreshore.

As the Appraisal notes, the area’s character is defined by those open spaces, together with surviving features of the formerly built-up waterfront, juxtaposed with housing development dating from the 18th century through to modern buildings and religious uses. As it relates to this appeal, I consider the significance of the CA to be most associated with those open spaces and their relationship to the designated heritage assets within, and immediately on, its boundary. In addition, views from those open spaces over to landmark London skyline features such as [name], sometimes framed by trees, also contribute to its significance.

The construction of National Terrace dates to the 1990s. It makes a positive contribution to the CA through its consistent rhythm of architectural features with mansard roofs, red brick lintels and corner detailing, a regular fenestration pattern including integrated garages, and the steel balconettes.

The ground floor extension would infill the area under the rear balcony, consistent with extensions at neighbouring properties. Given its discreet siting and limited scale, this aspect of the proposal would form an acceptably positive response to the existing building and surrounding area.

The proposed side extension would be located within the gap between the appeal building and [name]. Its height and scale would be clearly subordinate to that of the appeal building and wider terrace. Although it would be largely glazed at the riverside and eastern elevations, in contrast to the solid appearance of the wider terrace, this would give it an acceptably lightweight appearance that would clearly distinguish it as a later addition where it can be seen from the river, the area in front of National Terrace and from the open space beside the river. This would form a positive response to that existing context.

In the context of the [site address] streetscene, the proposed side extension’s rear wall would be apparent only in views from directly outside of the appeal site. Although this would result in additional massing to that provided by the solid boundary treatments, it would nonetheless remain subordinate to the appeal building and terrace overall and its brick finishes would ensure an acceptable appearance.

Given the set-back of the proposal from the terrace’s street elevation, when viewed from directly outside of the site it would be visually well contained and distinct from the rhythm of architectural features to that street elevation. Due to its siting, it would appear in a very limited range of perspectives when viewing the terrace obliquely, on approach to it from the east or west. Therefore, it would not detract from the consistent rhythm of its architectural features in those views.

The existing gap appears to be an incidental ‘leftover’ area. Given the presence of the existing boundary treatment in this location and based on my observations on the site visit, this gap does not provide any meaningful view to the river or, for example, London landmarks. Nor would it provide a view of any significance into the CA from the river or beyond. For these reasons, its open nature does not contribute to the significance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the building, and that it would preserve the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, there would be no harm to this designated heritage asset.

[name] is a former warehouse which dates from 1860-70 and is grade II listed (Ref: 1376582). It therefore comprises a designated heritage asset. Its significance derives in part from being a surviving example of London’s historic riverside industrial development and its appearance as a traditional warehouse building. It reflects the former working Thames waterfront, where such structures were once common, and therefore holds historic value within a largely lost industrial landscape. Its architectural interest lies in its robust, utilitarian form, with simple massing, functional fenestration, and limited but purposeful detailing, such as its entablature with stucco frieze and cornice.

The setting of [name] is influenced primarily by its riverside context. Its robust warehouse form and prominent entablature are best appreciated from the river as part of the historic Thames waterfront. The proposal is of limited scale and lightweight appearance and would be set back from the listed building’s waterfront elevation. It would therefore have an acceptably deferent and subordinate relationship to the listed building’s features and overall scale, not detracting from its setting in this regard.

The listed building also makes a strong contribution to the streetscene along [site address] , where its imposing scale is evident in oblique views travelling west. Its scale distinguishes it from the lower rise National Terrace, emphasising the listed building as a dominant element of the streetscene. Its architectural features, including the first-floor doors that clearly express its historic function as a working warehouse, are best appreciated from close-range, directly outside the building on [site address] . The proposal would be well set-back from the [site address] elevation, so would be visually isolated from these distinctive features when seen from this streetscene.

The listed building’s significance can also be appreciated from nearby open spaces beside the river, immediately to the west and beyond National Terrace to the east. From the west, views of its original brick side wall reveal its historic integrity as well as its scale, form and authenticity as a surviving industrial structure. Due to the proposal’s siting, it would not be visible from the open space to the west of the listed building and cause no harm to its setting in that respect.

From the open space to the east, and also outside of National Terrace on the river front, the side wall of [name] and oblique views of the distinct features of its waterfront elevation can also be appreciated. These perspectives allow an appreciation of the listed building’s scale, with which the proposal would not compete.

[name] was historically abutted by adjoining buildings of a considerable size at its eastern elevation. Its side wall has also likely been altered, with later doors and windows, and its surface is now rendered where it would once have abutted a neighbouring building. Therefore, the limited part of this wall that would be obscured by the proposal does not strongly contribute to the listed building’s architectural or historic interest. Consequently, the existing gap does not frame, reveal, or enhance appreciation of the listed building’s significance. As such, the gap neither enhances nor reveals the heritage significance of [name] and can reasonably be regarded as making no contribution to its setting.

The Council considers that listed building consent would be required for direct impacts on [name], which has not been sought. The plans indicate that lead flashing from the junction with the proposal would be chased into the eastern wall of the listed building. There is disagreement as to whether plates on that side wall would need to be relocated, and the impact that may result to historic fabric. Services may need to be relocated, too. However, all of those matters would need to be considered as part of an application for listed building consent, which is a separate matter. The appeal before me relates solely to an application for planning permission for proposed development and I have determined it on that basis.

There is no substantiated evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would prejudice the maintenance of [name] and cause harm in this regard. The appellant has proposed alternative solutions for carrying out maintenance, such as using scaffolding to bridge over the proposal. The evidence does not show that this would differ significantly from the existing operational requirement in this regard. Drawing these findings together, the proposal would not cause harm to the significance of [name], a designated heritage asset, or its setting.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building and the character and appearance of the CA. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act and the heritage provisions of the Framework. There would be no conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies P13, P19, P20 and P21 of the SP. Collectively, those policies seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment and to ensure that new development responds positively to the existing townscape, character and context.

In making this decision, I am obliged by the Public Sector Equality Duty, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination against persons with protected characteristics, to advance equality of opportunity for those persons and to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not. The appellant wishes to provide additional accommodation to meet the family’s specific cultural needs. The side extension would provide space for a room for Japanese tea ceremonies beside the garden. As a consequence of dismissing the appeal, this benefit to the occupiers would not be realised. I have given this factor moderate weight when assessing the proposal. However, this would not outweigh the harm I have identified to flood risk, the consequences of which could pose a significant risk to occupants of the appeal building and the wider community.

The Framework directs that significant weight should be given to the need to support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings. The appellant contends that significant energy and sustainability improvements to the appeal building that would result from the appeal scheme, including the solar panels. Nonetheless, given the small scale of this scheme, these benefits would carry only limited weight in favour of the appeal. Moreover, I am not satisfied that those same benefits could not be achieved as part of a less harmful, alternative proposal.

Although the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect on heritage assets and their setting, I have nonetheless found that there would be a harmful effect on flood risk.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.