Planning and Borough Development
Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, LONDON, W8 7NX
Executive Director Planning and Borough Development
Mr Jonathan Bore
The Planning Inspectorate
3/10a Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6PN
9th January 2015
My reference: PP/14/05989
Your reference: APP/K5600/A/A/14/3000600
Please ask for: Fergal O’Donnell
Dear Sir/Madam,
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended)
Appeal by Mr Alex Temple
Site at 12 Avondale Park Road, London, W11 4HL
1.0
Introduction
1.1
I refer to the above appeal which has arisen from the Council’s decision to refuse
planning permission, by notice of refusal dated 10th October 2014 under LPA
reference PP/14/05989, for an application with the following description of
development:
“Erection of mansard roof extension to property”
1.2
The reason for refusal of planning permission was:
“The proposed development, by reason of its unsympathetic design and
excessive scale, would have unduly bulky and overbearing appearance,
distorting the character of the host property and resulting in an unduly
dominant building in the streetscene, to the detriment of the character and
appearance of the area. The proposed development would therefore be
contrary to policy CD44(d) of the Unitary Development Plan 2002 and policy
CL2(f) of the Core Strategy 2010.”
1.2
The appeal is made under the written representations procedure. The Council’s
Officer Report for the application is appended to this statement at Appendix (1)
Planning Line: 020 7361 3012
Web:
www.rbkc.gov.uk
and the content of this letter constitutes the Council’s Written Statement for the
purposes of this appeal.
1.3
This Statement concentrates upon the Reason for Refusal. In the view of the
planning authority assessment of other material considerations remains as before
apart from some pieces of update relating to policies changes since the
determination of the application which are provided below in comments below.
2.0
Site Description
2.1
The application site is on the south-eastern corner of the junction of Avondale
Park Road and Hesketh Place. The building on the site is former public house,
constructed in the Victorian style, and now used as five flats. The two-storey
building with basement, maintains it robust and commercial character which
contributes positively to the appearance of the area.
2.2
The area is characterised by residential development, in varying forms, from
purpose built flats to dwellinghouses. The other buildings within the block of which
the application site forms part, are two and three-storey in scale and were
constructed in the early 1970s. The application site is not listed or within a
conservation area but the Avondale Conservation Area includes the dwellings
opposite the site on Avondale Park Road.
3.0
Relevant Planning History
3.1
The relevant planning history to this property is set out at Section 3 of the Officers
Report appended to this Statement.
4.0
Planning Policy Documents
4.1
The Core Strategy (CS) of the Local Development Framework for the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 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 Section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the “Development Plan‟ for the
appeal site at the time of the application comprised the Core Strategy [CS], the
London Plan (July 2011), the Revised Early Minor Alterations to The London Plan
[REMA] and the relevant “saved‟ policies from the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea UDP. The contents of the Government’s National Planning Policy
(NPPF) framework have also been taken into consideration.
4.2
On 3rd December 2014, RBKC adopted revisions to the Core Strategy which
relate in part to policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL5 and CL6 of the Core Strategy. Some
of these policies have been extrapolated to other create policies of which policies
CL8, CL9 and CL11 are also relevant to this appeal. The policies, as adopted, are
attached. The first reason for refusal relates to policy CL2 or the Core Strategy
and policy CD44 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy CD44 is now deleted
and no longer extant.
4.3
For the avoidance of doubt, the reason for refusal relates to policies CL8(b) and
CL9(b & g) of the Core Strategy.
5.0
Amplification of the Council’s Case
2|Page
5.1
The application sites occupies the corner building of a block of residential
properties. The property is now used for residential use but maintains much of its
public house character (former use), style and form. The neighbouring properties
are two-storey in height with pitched roofs and are much more recessive in scale.
The building provides a robust termination to the corner of the block and because
of its siting and architectural style, its more imposing form sits relatively
comfortably in the streetscene.
5.2
The western side of Avondale Park road is residential. The properties opposite
the application site are within the Avondale Conservation Area (those properties
to the north and north-west of the site are not). These are two-storey in scale with
the flats further north rising to three-storey. The mansion-block flats on the
opposite side of Hesketh Place to the application site are three-storey in scale.
5.3
Policy CL8(b) requires roof alterations and additional storeys to be sympathetic to
the age and character of the building as well as the group of buildings. To this
end, the policy seeks to:
“b. resist additional storeys, and roof level alterations on:
i. complete terraces or groups of buildings where the existing roof line is
unimpaired by extensions, even when a proposal involves adding to the whole
terrace or group as a co-ordinated design;
ii. buildings or terraces that already have an additional storey or mansard;
iii. buildings that have a roof structure or form of historic or architectural interest;
iv. buildings that are higher than surrounding neighbours, or where they would
detract from significant skylines or profiles;
v. buildings or terraces where the roof line or party walls are exposed to long
views from public spaces, and where they would have an intrusive impact on that
view or would impede the view of an important building or open space beyond;
vi. buildings that, by the nature of the roof construction and architectural style, are
unsuitable for additional storeys, e.g. pitched roofs with eaves;
vii. mansion blocks of flats where an additional storey would add significantly to
the bulk or unbalance the architectural composition;
viii. terraces that are already broken only by isolated roof additions.”
5.4
Policy CL9 of the CS requires extensions to existing buildings to be subordinate
and reinforce the character and integrity of the building and group of buildings. To
meet this objective, part (b) of the policy seek to resist extensions that would rise
above the general height of neighbouring and nearby extensions, or rise above
the original main eaves or parapet. Part (g) resists extensions where the
architectural symmetry of a building, terrace or group of buildings would be
impaired.
5.5
The proposal seeks to add an additional storey contrary to part (i) of the policy.
The existing parapet form provides a strong and comfortable termination to the
elevations which would be weakened by the proposed mansard roof form. The
building sits relatively comfortably with its neighbours to the south and east
although it is higher than them. However, the additional storey proposed would
unduly distort this relationship. The dual-pitched roofs of the adjoining residential
properties ease the transition to the more robust form of the application building.
This transition and relationship would be lost with the additional storey proposed.
The additional storey would appear conspicuous when viewed in the context of its
immediate neighbours, without any reference point for the transition in height, all
the more so because of the substantial parapet build-up required. The proposal
3|Page
would therefore fail to accord with policies CL8(b)(iv) and CL9(b) of the Core
Strategy.
5.6
The extensions would unbalance the scale and composition of the group of
buildings of which the application site forms part, representing a marked contrast
in form with the terraced properties to the south and east, properties viewed in the
same context as the appeals property. The proposal would therefore be contrary
to policy CL9(g) of the CS.
5.7
Though it is acknowledged that other buildings in the area are of a scale similar to
that proposed here, these buildings are largely viewed in a different context to the
application property, whether this be the mansion block typology opposite or the
recessive forms of buildings on the western side of Avondale. In addition, these
buildings are not set against the low-scale, two-storey residential context as the
application property is. They do not therefore provide a meaningful or pertinent
context for the application property.
6.0
Comments on the Appellant’s Appeal Statement
6.1
None received
7.0
Other Matters
7.1
The PINS reference quoted on the ‘Start Letter’ does not appear to correspond to
an appeal on the PINS website and the LPA was unable to find the relevant
appeal on the PINS website.
8.0
Conclusions
7.1
For the reasons outlined in section 5 of this statement, the development would
conflict with the policies and objectives of the development plan. It is therefore
respectfully requested that this appeal is dismissed.
9.0
Conditions
9.1
Without prejudice to the Council’s case, the following conditions are suggested
should the Inspector be minded to allow the appeal and grant planning
permission.
Recommended conditions if the application is granted
1. Time Limit
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
Reason - As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to
avoid the accumulation of unexercised Planning Permissions.
2. Compliance with approved drawings
The development shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the
details shown on submitted plans
Reason - The details are material to the acceptability of the proposals, and to ensure
accordance with the development plan.
4|Page
3. Submission of details
No development shall commence until full particulars of the materials to be used
on the external faces of the extensions have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority and the development shall not be
completed otherwise than in accordance with the details so approved
Reason – To accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and
appearance of the area are preserved.
Yours faithfully
Fergal O’Donnell
Senior Planning Officer
For the Executive Director Planning and Borough Development
APPENDIX (1)
Planning Officers Report
APPENDIX (2)
Revised and adopted policies
5|Page