Reapplication for Planning Permission for a New Room at Second
Floor Level to the Rear of 66A Princedale Road, London W11 4NL
This letter accompanies our re-application in which we intend to address the
inspector’s main point for dismissing our previous appeal:
“the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the host building and the local area”.
Introduction:
In 2012 our application Ref PP/12/03006, dated 14 August 2012 was refused.
We appealed this refusal because there were no specifics given in the planning
officer’s rejection letter and we sought guidance from the inspector as to which
elements of the proposal were unacceptable. The inspector’s appeal report had
many positives but highlighted the following reasons for dismissal:
1
“The rectangular shape, flat roof and elevated position of the new building
would cause it to appear as a ‘box-like’ addition to the rear of the appeal
property. With a side and rear wall clad with grey panels and two relatively small
windows in the new rear elevation, the general appearance and fenestration of
the appeal scheme would contrast with the traditional brick walls and larger sash
windows of the host building.”
2
“...its bulky form and utilitarian appearance would relate poorly to the
traditional style and thus be out of keeping with visual character of the host
property”.
3
“Although clear views of the proposed extension from public vantage
points would be limited, its upper section would be visible at some distance from
Pottery Lane, to the north of the site. In this view, the top of the new addition
would be evident projecting above the bamboo mesh fence that runs alongside
the boundary of the appeal property. From this direction, the new building
would appear as an uncharacteristically bulky addition that would detract from
the visual character of the terrace of which it would form part and the CA”.
4
“....the requirement for development proposals to preserve or enhance
the character or appearance of the CA applies with equal force whether or not
the proposal is prominent or available to public view”.
5
“Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would cause
significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. It would fail
to preserve the character and appearance of the CA.”
Our Review of the inspector’s findings:
The above comments comprise the entirety of the reasons for dismissal of the
appeal. Whilst there are many positive comments about our proposals there are
no other reasons for dismissal included in the report. Our revised application
seeks to address these issues in the following ways:






We have changed the materials of the extension to reclaimed London
stock brick in keeping with the Conservation Area(CA).
We have reduced the bulk of the extension by adding a shallow pitched
roof.
We have redesigned the two small rear facing windows. They have been
replaced by a single window which is similar in appearance and
dimensions to a traditional sash window and incorporates the central
glazing bar. As it can only be viewed over the roof of the adjoining
building it will appear to be a partial view of an existing sash window.
We have replaced the existing bamboo screen with a more permanent
structure of similar appearance.
We have redesigned the proposed extension so that it will now not be
visible from Pottery Lane, even from a distance.
By changing the materials, reducing the bulk and reducing the size of the
extension when viewed from Pottery Lane we have attempted to preserve
the character of the CA.
We have also amended our drawings in accordance with the planning officer’s
requirements so that our proposals impact on the living conditions at No 68 can
be assessed. You will see from the drawings that the proposed extension now
fits entirely behind the existing screen wall between the two properties which
was erected by No 68 prior to 2008 and has been in place since this date. This
screen wall will be renewed with a more durable structure to ensure its
longevity. Currently the screen is made of thin yellow/brown bamboos woven
into a garden screen. We propose to replace it with a garden fence panel/panels
of similar colour. This will enable us to provide a more durable and permanent
screen so that the new room will be invisible from Pottery Lane. The inclusion of
this screen whilst an improvement on the existing screen fence will not stop the
neighbours at No68 reinstalling a bamboo screen or similar screen on top of our
own landscaping if they see fit. The flank wall of the extension behind this
screen is of reclaimed English stocks in keeping with the CA.
Support from the Inspector for our Proposals.
Detailed reading of his report uncovers several positives for the proposals and at
no time does the inspector state that a revised proposal taking his main
comments into account would not be successful. In particular the inspector
states:
“Those buildings along Princedale Road close to No 66A are
similar in design, age and appearance, several of which have been
externally altered and extended at the rear to include high-level
additions”.
“The proposal is to erect a single storey flat roof extension that would sit on top
of the existing flat roof rear projection of No 66A at second floor level. It would
resemble the general size, position and general appearance of
extensions made to some adjacent properties in the same terrace as No
66A”.
“Although clear views of the proposed extension from public vantage points
would be limited...”
“While the fence would largely shield the appeal scheme from this public view...”
“The proposal would be comparable with the extensions at the back of some
properties in the same terrace as No 66A”.
Detailed Changes from the Earlier Application:
Increased detail has been added to the plans so that the impact of our scheme
on the CA and the living conditions at No 68 and can be assessed.
The existing bamboo screen between 66 and 68 is to be replaced with a more
permanent screen of similar size to ensure that the proposed extension will
remain invisible from Pottery Lane. The new screen will be screwed to the
elevation abutting No 68.
The side elevation which could previously be seen from Pottery Lane has been
altered so that it now nestles completely hidden from view.
The materials of the proposed extension have been changed to match those
predominant in the CA.
The architectural design of the proposed extension has been enhanced so as to
preserve or enhance the built environment.
The window design on the rear elevation of the proposed room has been
changed so that it now appears to be the top half of a traditional sash window
peeking over the existing parapet and roof of the building behind in Pottery
Lane.
The window in the SW elevation of the proposed room has been altered and is
now a traditional sash window viewing into the light well.
Discussion of Inspector’s Findings.
The main issue highlighted by the inspector is “the effect of the proposed
development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local
area”.
In his point 6) he states the “views of the proposed extension from public
vantage points would be limited, its upper section would be visible at some
distance from Pottery Lane, to the north of the site. In this view, the top of the
new addition would be evident projecting above the bamboo mesh fence that
runs alongside the boundary of the appeal property. From this direction, the new
building would appear as an uncharacteristically bulky addition that would
detract from the visual character of the terrace of which it would form part and
the CA”.
We have addressed the appearance of the proposed extension by changing the
materials to match those of the host building. The inspector’s point 6) covers
his findings related to views of the proposed building. He is worried that the
proposals would appear bulky when viewed from Pottery Lane. We have
reduced the height of this elevation and redesigned the roof so that
from this side the building is no longer visible from Pottery Lane and is
hidden entirely behind a screen no taller than the existing screen.
It is noted that the inspector specifically talks about the bulk of the extension
when viewed from this direction. He later states that the overall size of the
extension is acceptable to him and adds that it is “comparable with the
extensions at the back of some properties in the same terrace”.
Summary
We submit that we have listened to the inspector’s findings and redesigned our
proposals with them in mind.
The resulting structure will:






Not be visible from Pottery Lane
Will be reduced in size and bulk
Be in keeping with the material of the CA
Will be a high quality design
Will not compromise the character or appearance of the wider terrace.
Will relate very closely in style to the original and host buildings.
We put this revised application forward for your consideration and approval.