Appeal 6005422

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal relates to a three-storey house in a group of six from No 165 to 170 on the eastern side of [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with blocks of flats of up to five storeys, including those on the original [address] estate across the road from the appeal property. The land rises quite steeply to the east, towards three- and four-storey houses and flats on [address]. No [address] at first-floor level, and the principal bedroom on the second floor has a front balcony and rear terrace. The proposed development is the infilling of the rear terrace to create an enlarged bedroom space.

The appeal property is part of a scheme of 15 properties built on six infill sites within the [address] Estate following a grant of planning permission in 2015 1. Nos 165 to 170 are connected at ground floor level to form a single terrace, although the combination of inset front courtyards and lack of physical connection at first- and second-floor levels give them the appearance of a series of detached dwellings. The six properties are set on a narrow, sloping site with a curved street frontage; the footprint of the group as a whole might best be described as being similar to an aerofoil cross-section.

The curving planform of the group means that each property is different from the others in size and shape. However, a unified palette of materials and a range of common design features give the group a great degree of harmony and coherence, which means they combine to make a very effective positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Among those features is a chamfered rear south-east corner at second floor-level to provide space for a 1 [name]: 2014/6697/P rear terrace. This inset is found in five of the six houses – the neighbouring No 170 tapers considerably towards its southern end, so the chamfered corner is absent in that property. By squaring off the corner of No 169 at second-floor level, the proposed development would alter the appearance of that property individually, setting it at odds with its five neighbours, undermining the harmony and coherence of the group of six houses of which it is part.

The site is not within a conservation area, nor would the proposed development affect any other designated heritage asset or its setting. The balcony which would be infilled is at a rear corner of the property rather than on a front elevation. Nevertheless, it would be visible in numerous public, semi-public and private views; the altered form of the appeal property would be seen from the street in [address], from the entrance road to [address] to the south of the site, and from the rear of the properties on [address] in an elevated position to the east. The erosion of the distinct architectural form of the appeal property and its well-integrated group of neighbouring dwellings would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The harm which would arise would not be mitigated by the proposed use of materials to match the existing building.

My attention was drawn to a 2024 appeal decision relating to No [address], on the opposite side of [address] from the current appeal property but part of the same post-2015 infill scheme. That proposal was described as “a single storey side extension to provide a new entrance, study room and WC” 2. In allowing that appeal, the Inspector found that the extension to No 171 would “appear similar in design and appearance to the linking elements at the adjoining dwelling at [address] as well as the other modern infill on the other side of [address]”, and as such “would not be an alien addition and would not appear as an incongruous feature in the area”. However, in the scheme before me the proposed infilling of the rear balcony would undermine, rather than repeat, one of the unifying design elements of the group of six properties including No 169. The 2024 appeal decision does not therefore carry significant weight in favour of this proposal.

The appellant suggested that this appeal scheme might “balance” with Nos 170, 171 and [address]. However, as the appellant noted, they are different in form to No 169 and, of particular significance, they are not part of the same group of six dwellings I have described in paragraph 3 above. Hypothetical questions raised about how the Council might have treated the proposal had the appeal property been “flat/rectangular/squared on all sides just like no.170, 171, 172”, or relating to extending or altering “a typical 1930s dwelling” do not really address the planning matters relating to this specific proposal, and have had no significant bearing on my decision.

The appellant also referred to the committee report referring to the “original approval”; I was not provided with that report during this appeal, but must assume the appellant means in relation to the 2015 grant of planning permission referred to in paragraph 4 above. I have no reason to dispute the appellant’s assertion that there is no reference in that report to “the importance of this current ‘step in’ “ – that is, the inset rear balcony on No 169 and its neighbours – “to the rear of the subject dwellings”. However, the positive contribution common features like that give to the coherence and quality of the group of properties is, as I have noted in paragraph 5, apparent when walking around the area. The absence of any explicit 2 [name]: APP/X5210/D/24/3337128 reference to that feature in a 2015 committee report does not undermine its value today, nor is it therefore an observation which weighs significantly in favour of the proposed development.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would provide the appellant with a modest – though no doubt “much needed” – amount of additional space within the main bedroom of their house. However, I do not consider that this private benefit would outweigh the harm which I have found.

I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D1 of the 2017 Camden Local Plan which, among other things, requires that development respects local context, and has details which complement the local character.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.