`the creation of an additional floor to the existing house. To provide amenity space in the form of a roof terrace of 12.5 m2 and a store room of 3.5 m2, the total volume of the proposed construction is 48 m3. Both new areas are accessed from an accommodation stair raised from the existing stairwell. A corridor links the stair and store and affords access onto the terrace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 September 2017 by C J Ford BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI a person appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/17/3177425 63A Bramfield Road, London SW11 6RA  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr A White against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth.  The application Ref 2017/1605, dated 17 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 May 2017.  The development proposed is described as `the creation of an additional floor to the existing house. To provide amenity space in the form of a roof terrace of 12.5 m2 and a store room of 3.5 m2, the total volume of the proposed construction is 48 m3. Both new areas are accessed from an accommodation stair raised from the existing stairwell. A corridor links the stair and store and affords access onto the terrace’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The red line site location plan erroneously identifies a property located to the rear of No 147 Northcote Road. The appeal site is located to the rear of No 140 Northcote Road and is correctly identified in the appellant’s grounds of appeal. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers with particular regard to visual impact, daylight and noise. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a modern two storey house with two bedrooms. It infills a former gap in the built form located between the end of a two storey terrace on the north side of Bramfield Road and the rear projection of a three storey end of terrace property that fronts Northcote Road to the east. 5. The proposed additional floor would increase the height of the building by around 2.4m. The internal space would consist of three distinct parts; a store room on the eastern side, a corridor in the middle section and a staircase extension on the western side. 6. Behind the appeal property is the rear of No 138 Northcote Road. The ground floor of this mid terrace property is in commercial use but the upper floors Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/17/3177425 2 contain residential accommodation. The Council has expressed concerns about the effect of the proposed development in relation to the outlook of the second floor windows in the side of No 138’s rear projection and a sizeable first floor roof terrace attached to the end of the projection. 7. The appellant maintains that the proposal has been specifically designed to take the greatest care in preserving the amenity of the occupiers of No 138. In support of this claim, Drawing No 1606(P) 10.07 has been submitted as Appendix 5 to the grounds of appeal. This shows the building being raised in height by around 1.2m at the rear and then stepped back before rising again to the full height of the additional floor. As a consequence, the drawing is able to show that a 45 degree line projected from the threshold of the door opening onto the first floor terrace at No 138 would clear the proposed roof extension by more than one metre. 8. However, the step back identified in the drawing would only apply to the middle section of the extension, containing the corridor. The part closest to both the terrace and the second floor windows would be the store room which would not be set back in this manner. Owing to a combination of the close proximity of the store room element, its height and its dark grey zinc cladding, the proposal would result in an unduly oppressive sense of enclosure for the residential occupiers of No 138, particularly in relation to the enjoyment of the roof terrace. 9. The Council’s expressed concern in relation to daylight also relates to the roof terrace at No 138. However, owing to its elevated nature and the absence of any encompassing development on its north-eastern side, it is considered the proposal would not reduce the daylighting of the terrace to an unacceptable level. 10. To the front of the proposed extension, facing Bramfield Road, there would be a new roof terrace spanning the full width of the house. It would be set behind a parapet wall and be deeper in the middle section, reflecting the forward projection in the building’s facade. The terrace would measure around 12sqm and the Council suggests this would be large enough to host large gatherings which could generate an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance. 11. As noted by the appellant, the floor area of the terrace would not appear exceptionally large in relation to other roof terraces found in the nearby area. Also, the modest overall scale of the property would not promote large gatherings. However, the submitted plans indicate the shallower side elements of the terrace would be occupied by fixed planting beds. This would reduce the amount of space available for gatherings and their retention could be required by condition. Consequently, the concerns about excessive levels of noise and disturbance may be adequately mitigated. 12. Occupiers of some of the residential properties located on the opposite side of Bramfield Road have raised concerns in relation to a loss of privacy arising from the proposed roof terrace. However, given the separation distance would be around 16m and the fact the street is characterised by a similar separation distance between upper floor habitable room windows, it is considered the roof terrace would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of these properties. Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/17/3177425 3 13. The benefits of the proposed development are acknowledged. It would provide an additional and sunlit outdoor amenity area at the property as well as further storage space. It is also accepted the increased massing would enhance the street scene given the existing low built form of the property appears peculiar in the context of the taller surrounding development. Nevertheless, these considerations do not outweigh the harm previously identified above in relation to No 138. 14. It is therefore concluded the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the residential occupiers of No 138 Northcote Road with particular regard to visual impact. It would conflict with Policy DMS1 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document 2016. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that development does not harm the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties through overbearing and an unsatisfactory outlook. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks a good standard of amenity for occupants of buildings and the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2016 which promotes roof extensions that do not harm the amenity of neighbours. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. C J Ford APPOINTED PERSON