65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 November 2021 by Rory MacLeod BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 January 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/A5840/W/21/3274726 65 Gainsford Street, Southwark, London, SE1 2NB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AC of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr John Roadnight against the decision of the London Borough of Southwark. • The application Ref 21/AP/0582, dated 16 February 2021, was refused by notice dated 19 April 2021. • The development proposed is described as Prior Approval notification for the construction of an upward extension consisting of 1 no. additional storey and roof above the existing roof with the creation of 1no. self-contained residential unit. The upward extension will contain a dormer to the front and rear with glazed openings. The upward extension will be a maximum height of 3.5m above the existing ridge. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision Class AC to Part 20 of the GPDO relates to new dwellinghouses on terrace buildings in use as dwellinghouses. It enables development comprising “up to two additional storeys, in the case of an existing dwellinghouse consisting of two or more storeys” together with related works. 3. Paragraph AC.1 of Part 20 sets out a list of preclusions whereby development is not permitted by Class AC. I concur with the main parties that the proposal satisfies these eligibility criteria. 4. Paragraph AC.2(1) of Part 20 requires prior approval to be sought for the matters listed in that paragraph. The Council is content that the development meets all of the matters other than those relating to the external appearance of the building. I have no evidence to disagree with that assessment and have focused on the matter in dispute. 5. The Council also contend that the proposal would not comply with Paragraph AC.2(2)(b) which states that “following the development, the roof pitch of the principal part of the building must be the same as the roof pitch of the principal part of the existing dwellinghouse”.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision However, this paragraph does not list matters under which prior approval has to be sought, rather it lists conditions that apply when development under Class AC is permitted. The Council’s second refusal reason therefore does not fall to be considered. Its concerns here are a continuation of its first reason relating to external appearance. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision However, this paragraph does not list matters under which prior approval has to be sought, rather it lists conditions that apply when development under Class AC is permitted. The Council’s second refusal reason therefore does not fall to be considered. Its concerns here are a continuation of its first reason relating to external appearance. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A5840/W/21/3274726 Main Issue 6. The main issue therefore is whether the external appearance of the building would be acceptable and prior approval granted. Reasons 7. The appeal relates to a mid-terrace two-storey dwelling that is double the width of other dwellings in the terrace. The row of dwellings at 62-74 Gainsford Street otherwise has a consistent and pleasing appearance consisting of buff brickwork, red painted doors and window frames with light brick surrounds and grey slates to a central ridged roof. There are four-storey buildings to both ends of the terrace and the surrounding area comprises buildings generally of greater height than the terrace. 8. The proposal involves vertically extending front and rear walls for an additional storey and inserting large flat roofed front and rear dormers into the new roof. There would be internal alterations and the alteration of a front ground floor window to a door to enable the two additional floors to be used as a new independent dwelling. 9.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision The proposal’s external appearance would respect the building’s intrinsic design in that new upper floor windows would be suitably proportioned and aligned with existing windows, that external materials (particularly the cementitious pane slate tiles) would resemble existing materials and that visible parts to the new roof slope would reflect the angle of pitch and central ridge to the terrace. However, the sheer size of the front dormer would mean that little of the roof with a matching roof pitch would be provided. The front dormer’s vertical walls and flat roof would appear incongruous in relation to the intrinsic design of the dwelling’s principal elevation and would detract from the building’s external appearance, individually and as part of a terrace in the Gainsford Road street scene. 10. Paragraph AC.2(1) of Part 20 expressly references in relation to external appearance, “the design and architectural features of (aa) the principal elevation and (bb) any side elevation that fronts a highway”. As this is a mid- terrace dwelling there would not be a side elevation fronting a highway.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision But these two express references are preceded by the word “including”, indicating that this is not a closed list and that other factors could impact upon the external appearance of the building. The size of the rear dormer would be comparable to that on the frontage with little of the matching roof slope provided. Its mass and full width balustrade would be unsympathetic architectural features in relation to the intrinsic design and external appearance of the existing building. 11. My findings are that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. It would thereby not satisfy the requirements upon which prior approval should be assessed and so would not constitute permitted development. As planning permission is granted by the GPDO, subject to conditions and limitations, there is no express requirement to have regard to the development plan policies referred to in the Council’s decision notice. I have noted these only inasmuch as they are material to the matters for which prior approval is sought. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A5840/W/21/3274726 12. Paragraph 120(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should “allow upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene”. The general support for upward extensions is reflected in the recent amendments to the GPDO to enable these developments on various types of buildings. But individual proposals have to satisfy prior approval requirements set in the GPDO including in relation to external appearance. The proposal would not be “well-designed”, another requirement of Paragraph 120(e), in that the large dormers would not reflect design features on the dwellinghouse or in the terrace. Moreover, it would not “be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene”. 13. The appellant has likened the proposal to a grant of planning permission for the construction of two additional floors to the whole terrace at 62-74 Gainsford Street and has referred to similar prior approval submissions elsewhere in the terrace which if approved could result in a similar appearance.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision Furthermore, that there is a management company that would ensure a uniform treatment to the terrace as a whole and that preparations have been made for pre- fabricated units to be built off-site and craned on to all units in the terrace. Nonetheless, the appeal proposal has to be considered as a standalone development. There is no mechanism within the proposal to ensure a comparable treatment along the remainder of the terrace. 14. Reference is made to an allowed appeal for a two-storey upward extension under Part 20 Class A to the GPDO in Eastbourne1. Whilst noting that the exercise of permitted development allowances may result in a somewhat divergent relationship between buildings, that appeal related to a detached 3- storey building of flats with a flat roof. My determination of the current proposal has been in relation to the site circumstances at the appeal site which are very different to those at the Eastbourne site. Other Matters 15. I have noted the representations in support of the proposal, praising its design and commenting on it as a pre cursor to future applications along the terrace seeking upward extensions that would enable an end result of a pleasing uniform appearance.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Appeal Decision Whilst I do not doubt the desire to achieve a consistent appearance to the terrace as a whole, the appeal proposal necessarily has to be assessed as a standalone proposal. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.

65 Gainsford Street, London, Other (Non US), SE1 2NB — London Borough of Southwark — Rory MacLeod INSPECTOR 1 Appeal Ref: APP/T1410/W/20/3263486 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3