s p planning Date: 26 April CHRISTCHURCH STREET, LONDON SW3 4AR (LPA APP REF: PP/12/00249/Q21) GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Transcription

1 Date: 26 April 2012 Ref: R CHRISTCHURCH STREET, LONDON SW3 4AR (LPA APP REF: PP/12/00249/Q21) GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.1 Based on the Council's reason for refusal we believe the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the terrace and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area. 1.2 Development plan policies and guidance relevant to the appeal comprise: Core Strategy policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL6; Saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies CD 47 and CD 63; and the Royal Hospital Conservation Area Proposals Statement. 1.3 The appeal property is situated in the Royal Hospital Conservation Area and comprises a four-storey terraced house with a three-storey closet wing and small courtyard garden to the rear. It forms one end of a short terrace of 3 houses and abuts the rears of Nos. 4 and 6 Tite Street to the side. Its design and layout are typical of many properties of the same period in the area. 1.4 The proposal would involve the erection of an extension to the closet wing at second floor level. The scheme as originally submitted on 23 January 2012 included an extension at second floor level above the entirety of the rear outrigger (see drawing 243/20b), which represented an approximately 2.5% increase in the volume of the dwelling. The scheme was subsequently amended by the submission of a revised drawing (243/20d) showing a considerably smaller addition. This would provide space for a shower and increase the floor area of the dwelling by about 2.7sqm, approximately a 1% increase in the overall volume. Evidently the proposal is an extremely small addition. 1.5 The closet wing occupies a space that is tightly enclosed on three sides by the rears of Nos 12 and 14 Christchurch Street; Nos 2, 4 and 6 Tite Street and Nos 25, 27, 29 and 31 Tedworth Square. As such the proposal would not be visible from any public viewpoints and would therefore have very little effect on the character and appearance of the r grounds of appeal 1

2 Conservation Area beyond this very confined area. The photographs attached at Appendix 1 show the size, degree of enclosure and character of this space. It is evident that the rear elevations of surrounding properties have been altered over the years with extensions and terraces added. This part of the Conservation Area displays very little symmetry: the appearance of the area is in fact relatively random rather than uniform. 1.6 It is recognised that unlike the surroundings, the small terrace comprising Nos 10, 12 and 14 Christchurch Street does retain a degree of symmetry and uniformity, primarily due to the strong vertical emphasis of the 3-storey closet wings, the terraces enclosed by railings above and regular pattern of fenestration. However, whilst Nos 10 and 12 have small lean-to protrusions at terrace level, No. 14 does not: there is not in fact total uniformity across the whole terrace. 1.7 Due to its siting, set back from the rear face of the closet wing, the proposal would primarily be visible from the upper floor windows of properties to the rear. When viewed from most of these points the symmetry of the rear of the terrace would be maintained, namely the 3- storey closet wing would still be the principal element as the extension would be set back about 1.7m from its rear elevation. For these reasons we conclude that the proposal, because of its extremely modest size, siting behind the rear building line of the closet wing and therefore limited visibility would not spoil or disrupt the rhythm of the rears of the terrace. The proposal therefore complies with UDP Policy CD For the reasons given the above and having regarding to the contained nature of the proposal's setting and the lack of uniformity displayed by nearby properties, we also conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area and therefore complies with UDP Policy CD63 and the objectives of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area Proposals Statement. Thus, the proposal also complies with CS policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL6, which seek development of high design quality that contributes positively to the existing urban context and preserves or enhances conservation areas. 1.9 Whilst we recognise that each appeal needs to considered on its individual merits, we attach an appeal decision and drawing relating to a proposal for a rear addition at 11 Milborne Grove, London SW10 9SN, (ref: APP/K5600/D/11/ ) in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea where similar issues were considered by the planning r grounds of appeal 2

3 inspector, albeit in relation to a ground floor rear addition. In that case the inspector noted that the proposal would:...only be readily seen from the upper windows in adjacent properties and those backing onto the rear boundary. Even from these view points, the dominant vertical form of the existing rear additions and their and characteristic conservatories would remain largely unaltered such that the even rhythm of these extensions, overall, would not be disturbed. The extension would be seen as a horizontal plinth-like addition below the main traditional appearance of the terrace above, which would compliment and not alter its fundamental character Similarly the appeal proposal would only be seen from upper floor windows in properties to the rear and the dominant vertical form of the rears of the terrace would remain largely unaltered such that the even rhythm of these extensions, overall, would not be disturbed Given its extremely modest size and its siting above, and set back from the rear edge of, the closet wing, the proposal would not have a material impact on natural light to, or outlook from, nearby properties. Nor would it result in unacceptable sense of enclosure within the gardens of nearby properties. r grounds of appeal 3

4 APPENDIX 1: Photographs of the surroundings r grounds of appeal 4

5 APPENDIX 2: 11 Milborne Grove - approved drawing and appeal decision r grounds of appeal 5

6 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 January 2012 by Wenda Fabian BA Dip Arch RIBA IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 January 2012 Appeal Ref: APP/K5600/D/11/ Milborne Grove, London SW10 9SN The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Peter Field against the decision of The Council of The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The application Ref PP/11/02485, dated 28 July 2011, was refused by notice dated 23 September The development proposed is a rear extension at lower ground floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear extension at lower ground floor level at 11 Milborne Grove, London SW10 9SN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PP/11/02485, dated 28 July 2011, subject to the following conditions: 1) 2) 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: Drawing Number 1398/A1/001. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Boltons Conservation Area. Reasons The appeal relates to a three storey mid-terrace property in a terrace of attractive stucco dwellings within the conservation area. The proposed lower ground floor rear extension would replicate the form of the adjacent one at No 12; it would be built across the full width of the terraced property and would project around 3m beyond the general rear building line at this level, with a flat roof behind low parapets. At the rear, the main bulk of the terrace is four stories high, including the lower ground floor, with a low pitched butterfly roof form. Apparently original, mainly half-width, flat-roofed extensions, mostly three stories high and mostly paired on the party boundaries, now typify the rear appearance of the terrace. At many dwellings in the terrace there are light-weight conservatory-style infill extensions at ground floor level on brick extensions below, which sit between

7 Appeal Decision APP/K5600/D/11/ and in line with the half-width extensions. They combine with the tall extensions to produce a characteristic appearance that contributes to the character of the conservation area Policy CD47 of the Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002 (amended 2007) (UDP) seeks to avoid extensions that, amongst other things, disrupt the even rhythm of rear additions within a terrace. Whilst the proposed mid-terrace extension would project beyond the general line of original rear additions to this terrace, it would sit below the line of sight from Gilston Road, between the existing party boundary walls on each side and could only be readily seen from the upper windows in adjacent properties and those backing onto the rear boundary. Even from these view points, the dominant vertical form of the existing rear additions and their and characteristic conservatories would remain largely unaltered such that the even rhythm of these extensions, overall, would not be disturbed. The extension would be seen as a horizontal plinth-like addition below the main traditional appearance of the terrace above, which would compliment and not alter its fundamental character. Policy CL6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Development Framework Core Strategy, 2010, (CS) relates to small scale extensions such as the one proposed and resists these where they would result in a cumulatively harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Other similar extensions have already been authorised. However, as set out above, these can mostly only be seen individually, or in small groups together, from limited viewpoints. They do not harm the character of the terrace as a whole. I conclude that the proposed extension would not harm the character and appearance of the building and would preserve the character and appearance of the Boltons Conservation Area. Thus, it would also comply with CS policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL6, which seek development of high design quality that contributes positively to the existing urban context and preserves or enhances conservation areas. No conditions, other than the standard time limit, have been suggested. As the flat roof to the proposed extension would be mostly occupied by roof lights and surrounded by only a low parapet it would not be suitable for use as a terrace without further modification and I agree no limit on its use is necessary. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning a condition specifying the approved drawing is necessary. Wenda Fabian Inspector 2