Planning and Borough Development Business Group
Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, LONDON, W8 7NX
Executive Director of Planning and Borough Development
Jonathan Bore
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/26b
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
4th October 2012
My references: PP/12/01389
Your references: APP/K5600/E/12/2181271
Please ask for: Ronaldo Colalillo
Dear Sirs,
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Appeals by Mr Tunde Karim
Site at : Flat 10, Arden House, 107 Earl’s Court Road, London W8 6QJ
I refer to the appeal by Mr Tunde Karim under section 78 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 against the Council’s decision to refuse Planning Permission ref.
PP/12/1389 for the “Erection of a roof level extension and associated creation of a
formal roof terrace area in connection with the enlargement of Flat 10” on the 21st
June 2012.
The Council’s reasons for refusing planning permission ref. PP/12/01389 are as
follow:
1.
The proposed roof level extension by virtue of its prominent position,
bulk, materials and detailed design would fail to preserve or enhance
the character or appearance of the premises, the group of buildings of
which it forms part and the overall setting of the Lexham
Conservation Area, contrary to 'Saved' policies expressed in the
Unitary Development Plan 2002, as amended 28th September 2007, in
particular Policies CD44, and CD45 as well as Core Strategy Policies
CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL6.
2.
The proposed roof level extension and associated creation of a formal
roof terrace area would have a negative impact upon the amenities of
neighbouring properties and gardens in terms of increased levels of
overlooking, noise and disturbance, contrary to the Council's
Development Plan Policies, in particular Policy CD46 of the Unitary
Development Plan and Core Strategy Policy CL5.
The appeal to the Secretary of State by the appellant against the refusal to grant
planning permission dated 21st June 2012 now forms the subject of this written
representation. The Council considers that, with additional information and Statutory
Plans and Policies, the Council’s Development Plan; the following documents
together with this letter, constitute the Royal Borough’s written statement and clearly
sets out the Royal Borough’s reasons for refusing planning permission.
A1 Location plan of Flat 10, Arden House, 107 Earl’s Court Road, London W8 6QJ
A2 Delegated report dated 21st June 2012 recommending the refusal of planning
application ref. PP/12/01389.
A3 Copy of Planning Permission Decision Notice dated 21st June 2012.
A4 Copy of the drawings submitted as part of planning application ref. PP/12/01389.
A5 Photographs of the appeal site.
A6 Map identifying the Lexham Conservation Area.
Statutory Plans and Policies
The Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework for the Royal Borough was
adopted on December 8th 2010, and contains planning policies which have
succeeded the majority of those in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). For the
purposes of S.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the
‘Development Plan’ now comprises the Core Strategy, the London Plan July 2011,
plus relevant ‘Saved’ policies from the UDP.
Other relevant documents to be considered are the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Planning
Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:
‘If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination
to be made under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance
with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
PPS 1 outlines the general policies and principles under which the planning system
is to operate which reiterates the emphasis that is to be placed upon the
Development Plan. Paragraph 28 states:
‘Planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless
other material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning decisions taken in
accordance with the plan are therefore key to the delivery of sustainable
development.’
I would like to add further to paragraph 6.1 of the Council’s delegated report dated
21st June 2012 and comment accordingly on the appellant’s grounds of appeal that
are as follow:
The appellant suggests that the existing building has limited character and no
architectural features and that the addition of a mansard roof extension would add a
visually appealing feature to the premises. It further argues that the proposed roof
level extension would replace a poorly designed conservatory which is currently in
situ at main roof level (structure which has been erected without planning
permission), therefore preserving its character and appearance.
In response to the above, whilst the Council accepts that the property may not have
any particular architectural merits, its overall bulk and massing (which include front,
rear and main roof level building lines), these follow and are in line with those of the
adjacent Victorian terrace directly to its north. None of these adjacent buildings (all
forming part of the same group of properties) exhibit roof level additions and if
allowed, the subject property would be the only one to feature an additional storey.
This would breach the existing roof line of this group of properties therefore having a
significant detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Lexham
Conservation Area which would be harmed as a result.
It is accepted that the property currently exhibits roof level additions, however, as
explained in the original officer’s report dated 20th June 2012, these have not been
designed as an additional level to the property but merely as subordinate roof
housing and roof access structures. With the exception of the later side addition
(conservatory for which planning permission has not been granted), it is evident that
such structures were deliberately placed within the more discreet central part of the
roof area, set away from the roof edges.
The proposals are contrary to guidance provided within page 48 of the Lexham
Conservation Area Proposal Statement which states that the roof of the property
(categorised as being a number ‘1’ type of roof), is unsuitable for additional storeys.
Paragraph 4.4.2 of the UDP estates that additional storeys and roof level alterations
very often have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of buildings and
on the skyline of the area in general. This has been the case with the present
proposal, which has been judged in relation to: (i) its effect upon the character of the
street or terrace, the skyline as seen from neighbouring houses and streets, and; (ii)
the design relationship of the additional storey to the building.
‘Saved’ UDP Policy CD44 seeks to resist additional storeys and roof level alterations
in the following circumstances; (i) complete terraces or groups of buildings where the
existing roof line is unimpaired by extensions, (ii) buildings which by the nature of the
roof construction and architectural style are unsuitable for roof additions, (iii) blocks
of flats where an additional storey would add significantly to the bulk or unbalance
their architectural composition. ‘Saved’ UDP Policy CD45 on the other hand seeks to
permit additional storeys and roof level alterations only in circumstances where; (i)
the character of a terrace or group of buildings has been severely compromised by a
variety of roof extensions and where infilling between them would help to re-unite the
group and (ii) the alterations would be architecturally sympathetic to the age and
character of the building and would not harm its appearance.
Whilst contemporary in design, the appeal property clearly respects the bulk and
prevailing roof line of its neighbouring Victorian buildings. None of the properties
forming part of the group exhibit roof level additions. The works are therefore
contrary to criteria provided within ‘Saved’ UDP Policies CD44 and CD45 as
mentioned above.
The proposed additions would be visible from a number of properties within the
vicinity of the site. Such visibility impact is recognised within further UDP policy
CD63 and its associated reasoned justification in paragraph 4.5.9 of the UDP. There
are a number of buildings within close proximity to the application site where the
upper floors enjoy views across the roofscape. The proposals cause harm to the
views enjoyed from these properties contrary to UDP policy CD63.
It is critical to refer to and appreciate the contents of paragraph 4.5.9 of the UDP
which states:
“The Borough contains some of the best examples of Victorian and Edwardian
townscape in London. Overall, the residential environment is of the highest quality.
This environmental quality is evident not only in the public realm, but also at the rear
and sides of properties, particularly, around areas of private gardens. Residents’
appreciation and enjoyment of the special character and appearance of conservation
areas derives from both public viewpoints and views from within their dwellings. In
applying these policies, the Council will consider not only the street scene, but views
from other buildings and gardens, as these are also important to residents’
amenities. In particular, careful regard will be had to the content of Conservation
Area Proposals Statements.”
N.B. Underlining added.
The same protection to views is stated in the Core Strategy, adopted 8 December
2010. Paragraph 34.3.10 states: “The quality and character of an area is not only
provided by the individual buildings but it is also gained from views into and out of
the area. Policy CL1 states: “The Council will require development through its
architecture and urban form to contribute positively to the context of the townscape,
addressing matters such as views… The Council will resist development which
interrupts, disrupts or detracts from views…” Paragraph 34.3.37 states: “The
character and appearance of a conservation area is not only provided by the high
quality and appearance of individual buildings within the area and the inter
relationship between them but it is also gained from views into and out of the area.”
On this basis, the Council maintains that the proposals, due to their prominent
position, bulk, materials and detailed design fail to either preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the building, the group of properties of which it forms part
and the setting of the conservation area, contrary to 'Saved' policies expressed in the
Unitary Development Plan 2002, as amended 28th September 2007, in particular
Policies CD44, CD45 and CD63 as well as Core Strategy Policies CL1, CL2, CL3
and CL6.
With regards to impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residential premises, the
appellant suggests that the main roof of the premises benefits from an established
use as a formal outdoor amenity area (roof terrace). The Council on the other hand
maintains that this is not the case. Indeed, an inspection of the Council’s planning
records indicate that neither planning permission has been granted nor a certificate
of lawful existing use has been issued to confirm that the main roof of the property
has or is currently being lawfully used as a formal outdoor amenity space associated
with the occupants of flat 10.
Indeed, ‘Saved’ UDP Policy CD46(a) seeks to resist the introduction of roof terraces
in circumstances where significant overlooking of or disturbance to neighbouring
properties or gardens would result. Paragraph 4.4.6 of the UDP states that whilst
terraces on roofs of main buildings or extensions can provide a valuable small area
of open space for residents, they can also result in serious intrusion into the privacy
and quite enjoyment of neighbouring residential properties, and be visually intrusive.
The appellant also seems to suggest that if accepted, the erection of the roof level
addition would reduce the area of the existing roof and consequently reduce any
harmful impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, currently
arising from its existing configuration.
The Council maintains that there is no evidence to suggest that the area in questions
has originally been designed as an outdoor amenity area. The present situation is
therefore likely to have resulted from the provision of an escape route in the event of
fire or for general maintenance purposes. The proposed works would involve the
erection of an additional storey incorporating French doors and a number of windows
plus that of the associated creation of a formal roof terrace area at main roof level,
which would result in harm to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties
and garden both, by way of increased levels of overlooking and disturbance. The
Council therefore maintains that the works are contrary to the aims of further ‘Saved’
UDP Policy CD46(a) as well as those of CS Policy CL5 parts (b) and (d) accordingly.
This statement has provided the reasons as to why the Council considers that the
proposed works would both fail to make a positive improvement to the overall
character and appearance of the premises as well as have a detrimental impact
upon the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of increased levels of
overlooking, noise and disturbance.
In the circumstances, the Council maintains its views that the proposed works fail to
comply with the aims of ‘Saved’ UPD Policies CD44, CD45, CD46 and CD63 as well
as those of Core Strategy Policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL5 and CL6.
Accordingly, for the reasons in this letter and those in the enclosed delegated report,
the Inspector is respectfully requested to dismiss the present planning application
appeal and uphold the Council’s decision to refuse retrospective planning permission
ref. PP/12/01389 dated 21st June 2012.
If the Inspector is nevertheless minded to grant planning permission for the works,
the Council therefore requests that the following condition be attached to the
scheme:
All work and work of making good shall be finished to match the
existing original work in respect of material, colour, texture, and
profile and, in the case of brickwork, facebond and pointing.
(C071)
Reason - To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. (R072)
Implications of draft National Planning Policy Framework
We have considered the draft National Planning Policy Framework in respect of this
appeal. The matters in dispute in this appeal include visual impact, the preservation
and enhancement of conservation areas and impact upon neighbouring residential
amenity in particular. Matters relating to visual impact and the preservation and
enhancement of conservation areas are addressed in paragraph 188 of the NPPF
where it states:
Local planning authorities should look for opportunities to enhance or better reveal
the significance of Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites. When considering
applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning
authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the
setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the
asset.
The Council’s view is that the development which is the subject of the present
appeals does not preserve elements of the setting of the adjacent conservation area
which make a positive contribution. The Council’s decision on the application which
is the subject of this appeal is consistent with the draft National Planning Policy
Framework in this regard and no part of the draft National Planning Policy
Framework should materially change the outcome of this appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Elen Richards
Development Control Section Leader
For the Executive Director, Planning and Borough Development
Appendix 1:
Location plan of Flat 10, Arden House, 107 Earl’s Court Road, London W8 6QJ.
Appendix 2:
Delegated report dated 21st June 2012 recommending the refusal of planning
application ref. PP/12/01389.
Appendix 3:
Copy of Planning Application Decision Notice dated 21st June 2012.
Appendix 4:
Copy of the drawings submitted as part of planning application ref.
PP/12/01389.
Appendix 5
Photographs of the appeal site.
Appendix 6:
Map identifying the Lexham Conservation Area.