«Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE C Report Title First Floor Flat, 71 Kitto Road, SE14 5TN Ward Telegraph Hill Contributors Helen Milner Class PART 1 17 ...»
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE C
Report Title First Floor Flat, 71 Kitto Road, SE14 5TN
Ward Telegraph Hill
Contributors Helen Milner
Class PART 1 17 JULY 2014
Reg. Nos. DC/14/86513
Application dated 28.04.2014 [as revised on 23.06.2014]
Applicant Mr Stephen Brooker of Graysbrook Design on
behalf of Mr Jack Buckle
Proposal The construction of 2 dormer windows to the rear roof slope of First Floor Flat 71 Kitto Road SE14, together with the installation of 1 roof light to the front roof slope.
Applicant’s Plan Nos. 2013/264/A 1of7, 2of7, 3of7, 4of7, 5of7, 6of7, 7of7, Site Location Plan and Heritage Statement Background Papers (1) Case File DE/42/71/TP (2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (3) Local Development Framework Documents (4) The London Plan Designation Telegraph Hill Conservation Area Screening N/A
1.0 Property/Site Description
1.1 The application relates to the first floor flat of a three storey mid-terrace property on the north side of Kitto Road. The application property occupies the first floor, with the ground floor and basement in separate ownership.
1.2 To the front elevation of the property there is a bay window over three floors, with a pitched roof feature.
1.3 To the rear of the property there is an original two storey projection, which occupies the west side of the property. There are currently no dormers or roof lights on the property, although the adjoining property to the west in the terrace has both.
1.4 The property lies within the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area, but is not adjacent to any listed buildings.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 There are several applications for works to trees in a conservation area, but no planning applications relating to this property.
3.0 Current Planning Applications The Proposals
3.1 This application is for the construction of 2 dormer windows to the rear roof slope, together with the installation of 1 roof light to the front slope to facilitate the conversion of the loft space for use as an additional bedroom with bathroom.
3.2 The dormer windows will be set each side of the roof, 2.2m apart and both measure 1.24m wide and 1.9m high. Both dormer windows will sit just below the ridgeline and be set up from the eaves by approximately 1m. The dormers will have timber framed windows and the roofs and cheeks would be clad in lead.
3.3 The rooflight on the front roofslope will measure 0.8m wide and 1.1m long, projecting from the roofslope by approximately 10mm.
3.4 The application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement, this provides a brief overview of the area context, the proposal and impact on the heritage asset, which it concludes is minimal.
4.1 This section outlines the consultation carried out by the Council following the submission of the application and summarises the responses received. The Council’s consultation exceeded the minimum statutory requirements and those required by the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
4.2 Site notices were displayed and letters were sent to residents in the surrounding area and the relevant ward Councillors.
Written Responses received from Local Residents and Organisations The Telegraph Hill Society
4.3 Object to this application on the basis that it compromises the appearance of the property within the context of the Conservation Area and the integrity of the Conservation Area, failing to enhance or preserve the area’s character.
4.4 With reference to the rear dormers they are considered to be too large and prominent, being clearly visible from Erlanger Road. The other visible dormers in the area were permitted prior to Conservation Area designation and allowing dormers which are visible from the public realm sets an unsatisfactory precedent.
Additionally the proposed dormers are contrary to planning policy as the flat roofed dormer design is not suitable for Victorian property.
4.5 In respect of the front rooflight the Society object to principle of rooflights, stating that they severely affect the symmetry/uniformity of properties across Conservation Area. Also that rooflights are not consistent with the Conservation Area Appraisal for Telegraph Hill, as they erode the character of area and Kitto Road has very few.
4.6 Object to the use of roof lights on front roof slopes which fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The provision of two dormer windows to the rear roof slope of a two storey property when visible from a side street is also objectionable for the same reason.
4.7 One letter of support was received from a local resident who thought the proposal would allow reasonable alterations to living space.
4.8 No further comments received.
5.0 Policy Context
5.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) sets out that in considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must have regard to:a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.
A local finance consideration means:
(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or (b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
5.2 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that any determination under the planning acts must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Lewisham comprises the Core Strategy, Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted in June 2011), those saved policies in the adopted Lewisham UDP (July 2004) that have not been replaced by the Core Strategy and policies in the London Plan (July 2011). The NPPF does not change the legal status of the development plan.
National Planning Policy Framework
5.3 The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It contains at paragraph 14 a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Annex 1 of the NPPF provides guidance on implementation of the NPPF. In summary this states that (paragraph 211), policies in the development plan should not be considered out of date just because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. At paragraphs 214 and 215 guidance is given on the weight to be given to policies in the development plan. As the NPPF is now more than 12 months old paragraph 215 comes into effect. This states in part that ‘…due weight should be given to $Sfrxeiyr.Doc relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)’.
5.4 Officers have reviewed the Core Strategy and saved UDP policies for consistency with the NPPF and consider there is no issue of significant conflict. As such, full weight can be given to these policies in the decision making process in accordance with paragraphs 211, and 215 of the NPPF.
5.5 The London Plan policies relevant to this application are:
Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 5.
3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
5.6 The London Plan SPG’s relevant to this application are:
Sustainable Design and Construction (2006) Housing (2012)
5.7 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011.
The Core Strategy, together with the Site Allocations, the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate
to this application:
Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham Core Strategy Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment.
Unitary Development Plan (2004)
5.8 The saved policies of the UDP relevant to this application are:
URB 3 Urban Design URB 6 Alterations and Extensions URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas HSG 4 Residential Amenity HSG 12 Residential Extensions
5.9 According to paragraph 216 of the NPPF decision takers can also give weight to
relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the • preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);
The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the • less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the • policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).
5.10 The following emerging plans are relevant to this application.
Development Management Plan
5.11 The Development Management Local Plan – Post Examination Modifications April 2014 Public Consultation Copy, is a material planning consideration and is growing in weight. The plan was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 15 November 2013 and an Examination in Public hearing took place in late February 2014. The Inspector’s report is awaited and it is likely that the Plan will be adopted in autumn 2014.
5.12 Following this examination policies were either unchanged, had additional modifications or main modifications. The unchanged and additional modification policies will not be reconsulted on or revised prior to adoption but the proposed main modification policies may alter following reconsultation. Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF, the weight decision makers should accord the Submission Version should reflect the advice in the NPPF paragraph 216.
5.13 The following policies are considered to be relevant to this application and are
Principle of Development
6.2 Policy HSG 12 Residential Extensions of the UDP states that the council will only
permit residential extensions which:
1. Retain a readily accessible, secure, private and useable external space for recreational and domestic purposes;
2. Do not result in an appreciable loss of privacy and amenity (including sunlight and daylight) for adjoining houses and their back gardens;
6.3 The application proposes a single rooflight on the front roof slope and two dormer windows in the rear roof slope to enable the loft space to provide additional habitable accommodation. Matters of amenity, design and impact on the conservation area are dealt with below and provided that the scheme is found to be acceptable in these respects, the principle of the proposed works is considered to be acceptable.
6.4 The Council’s adopted UDP policies URB 3 Urban Design and URB 6 Alterations and Extensions requires extensions to be of a high quality design which should complement the scale and character of the existing development and setting, and which should respect the architectural characteristics of the original building.
Emerging Development Management policy DM 31, also states that extension and alterations will be required to be of a high, site specific, and sensitive design quality.
6.5 The proposed roof light will be placed off centre on the front roof slope, measuring
0.8m by 1.1m. This will ensure that the rooflight does not appear to be overly dominant within the roofslope and is of an appropriate scale therefore complementing the environment in which the property is set.
6.6 The proposed extension to the roof has been designed as two single, separate dormer windows rather than a single large dormer. Whilst the dormers are not of a design associated with the period of the existing house, given the context of the site, they are considered appropriate. With only the dormer to the west side visible from the public realm, this has been designed to match the style, albeit on a smaller scale, of the adjacent dormer window at number 69 Kitto Road. The flat roof design continues the roofline of the adjacent dormer and the design will not contrast or make the dormers any more pronounced or distracting in relation to the character of the wider conservation area.
6.8 The Council’s adopted UDP policy URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas stipulates that extensions to buildings will not be permitted where the proposal is incompatible with the special characteristics of the area, including the area’s buildings, scale, form and materials.
6.9 Having assessed the development and impact on the character of the conservation area, Officers consider there will be a minimal impact. The rooflight to the front does not punctuate an uninterrupted roofscape and is of a small scale set above the pitched roof of the bay window. This helps to reduce the impact and slightly obscure the view. Whilst the Amenity Societies Panel and the Telegraph Hill Society both object to the principle of front roof lights, each case must be viewed in context and the impact assessed accordingly.