Appeal 6004434

The appeal is dismissed.

I have been appointed to determine two appeals at the same address, which have been made by the same appellant. This decision relates to a scheme at the rear of the property; the other, which relates to the front of the building, is the subject of a separate decision ([name]: 6004443).

The development was described on the planning application form as: Keep frameless glass balustrade as built. Install two permanent, bespoke, wide planters (900mm wide), set back from the parapet wall/ glass balustrade. The planters are proposed to have a privacy slatted timber (oak) screen, 1.7m high, and dense planting to block sightlines into neighbours’ gardens. Also, a new freestanding cast iron handrail, set back 550mm from the rear parapet wall edge proposed.

An amended wording was used during the appeal; I have used that in the banner heading above as it provides a more concise description of the scheme. I have made further minor alterations, including removing the reference to the retention of the glass balustrade which has already been installed, as retention is not in itself descriptive of development. Nevertheless, I was able to see the balustrade in place during my site visit.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • The character and appearance of the Eton Conservation Area (“the ECA”); and • Living conditions for occupiers of the neighbouring properties at 12 and [address], with particular regard to loss of outlook.

The appeal relates to a self-contained flat on the lower ground and ground floors of a four-storey mid-terrace building on [address], a private residential road on the south-eastern side of England’s Lane. [name] 2024 planning permission was granted for, among other things, a single-storey flat-roofed extension some 4m deep across the full width of the rear of the property1; which has since been built. That permission allowed the creation of a roof terrace around 2m deep across part of the width of the extension, with 1.7m high obscure glass privacy screens to the sides; the remaining space beyond the terrace would have been given over to a living green roof.

This appeal stems from the appellant’s wish to have a larger roof terrace than allowed by the 2024 permission. I saw that “as built” the timber decking of the terrace extends across the full area of the flat roof within the parapet, and a frameless glass balustrade around 1.1m high has been installed on the parapet beyond the privacy screens; there is no green roof. The scheme which is before me includes the retention of the glass balustrading. Other elements which have not been installed, intended to reduce the area of the roof which could actually be used as a terrace and to mitigate its impacts on privacy for neighbours, are two large metal planters – one on each side of the terrace, each with a slatted untreated oak privacy screen to a height of 1.7m on its outward edge – and a cast iron handrail set back around 0.75m from the external rear edge of the extension.

The site is within the ECA, and I have a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) states that they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance (paragraph 202). It goes on to advise that any harm or loss requires clear and convincing justification (paragraph 213) and that any harm that is less than substantial must be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal (paragraph 215).

The ECA is a predominantly residential area, with buildings of a variety of styles and sizes reflecting its relatively unplanned development from the mid-19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, though large detached and semi-detached Victorian villas are the predominant type within the area. The combination of mature street trees and generous rear gardens gives much of the area a verdant character. Notwithstanding the variety in building scale and style, where groups of dwellings were developed together the use of common materials and design themes often gives consistency within clusters.

The Council’s 2002 Eton Conservation Area Statement (“the ECAS”) describes [address] as having been built during the 1880s, with perhaps more variety in style and materials than found in other clusters. All the buildings within [address] are identified in the ECAS as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The ECAS sets out guidelines for various types of development within the ECA. It acknowledges that roof gardens and terraces can represent an opportunity to 1 [name]: 2024/1382/P create additional external open space, but cautions that care should be taken so that they do not have a detrimental impact on the streetscene, surrounding buildings or the architectural quality of the building. In this case, as the terrace is at the rear of the property, it is not visible from the street. However, such a large elevated external terrace (albeit that it would functionally be smaller than currently constructed) would be an unusual feature at the rear of [address]. The slatted timber privacy screens would also be a relatively large and prominent feature, which be at odds with their surroundings in terms of form and material. All of these elements would be highly visible, and would tend to draw the eye from, the rear windows of numerous nearby properties and from neighbouring rear gardens.

Notwithstanding that it catches and reflects light, I consider that the glazed balustrading is a relatively unobtrusive element of the scheme. [name] acknowledge concerns raised by interested parties, I find that the balustrading on its own has not caused significant harm.

Overall, however, the development would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the ECA. The harm to the Conservation Area’s significance as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial and indeed, given the relatively small scale of the development and its siting at the rear of a building, towards the lower end of that categorisation. However, in line with the Framework’s provisions, and while I acknowledge that the provision of a larger terrace would be a considerable private benefit for the appellant, there are no public benefits arising from the proposal which would outweigh the harm I have found.

I therefore conclude that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and wider ECA, contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the 2017 Camden Local Plan (“the CLP”). Together, and among other things, these policies seek to ensure that development contributes positively in complementing local character, whilst preserving or enhancing the historic environment and heritage assets including conservation areas. For the same reasons, the proposal would also fail to accord with the provisions of the Framework which seek to protect and conserve heritage assets.

The roof terrace is close to the (upper) ground floor windows of the properties on either side, Nos 12 and [address]. [name] was able to observe during my site visit, the relationship between the appeal property and these neighbours is such that direct overlooking of, and into, those windows from very close range is possible. This is particularly the case in respect of No 14, which has a two-storey rear bay not shown in the submitted drawings.

The proposed timber privacy screens would be intended to prevent such overlooking, and thereby mitigate that harm. Based on what I saw on site, it seems likely that they would achieve that aim. However, the screens would also be highly visible from, and would interrupt views from, the nearest rooms on either side. While long views down the rear gardens would remain unobstructed, the screens would constrain the outlook from those rooms in a way which would be detrimental to their occupiers’ living conditions.

The appellant suggested during the appeal that they would be willing to extend the opaque glass along the full length of the sides of the roof terrace. It is not entirely apparent whether it was intended that this would be instead of, or as well as, the timber trellis screens. However, opaque glass would also serve to limit outlook from the neighbouring properties, so this measure would not mitigate the harm I have found on this issue.

I conclude that, because of its adverse effect on outlook, the development would be harmful to living conditions for occupiers of the neighbouring properties at 12 and [address]. As such it would conflict with the provisions of Policy A1 of the CLP which seeks to manage the impact of development by preventing unacceptable harm to amenity, including in respect of outlook.

The Council and interested parties referred to differences between the extension as approved by the 2024 planning permission and as subsequently built. Other than where these differences are directly relevant to the proposal before me, and are therefore addressed in my reasons above, these points have not had a significant bearing on my decision in this appeal; my role is to consider the specific proposal before me.

The appellant drew my attention to the large extension at the rear of No [address], and the overlooking of neighbouring gardens which is possible from it. I saw that extension during my site visit, though I did not enter that property. I do not know the circumstances in which the extension came into being but, regardless of that, it does not provide a strong justification for allowing the harm I have found as described above.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.