Extension at ground floor level to infill the courtyard and minor extension to the side of the rear projection on first floor. Replacement of windows with new timber sashes throughout, new openings to match style and existing terraces. French door to access terrace. New boundary treatment to front. Glazed screen to boundary at rear. New roof lights. New porch canopy to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2018 by Jason Whitfield BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12th February 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/17/3187888 2 Lanfrey Place, London W14 9PY  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 Charles Hayes against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.  The application Ref 2017/03283/FUL, dated 18 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 October 2017.  The development proposed is an extension at ground floor level to infill the courtyard and minor extension to the side of the rear projection on first floor. Replacement of windows with new timber sashes throughout, new openings to match style and existing terraces. French door to access terrace. New boundary treatment to front. Glazed screen to boundary at rear. New roof lights. New porch canopy to front. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension at ground floor level to infill the courtyard and minor extension to the side of the rear projection on first floor, replacement of windows with new timber sashes throughout, new openings to match style and existing terraces, French door to access terrace, new boundary treatment to front, glazed screen to boundary at rear, new roof lights and new porch canopy to front at 2 Lanfrey Place, London W14 9PY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/03283/FUL, dated 18 August 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1128-500 Rev P01, 1128-501 Rev P01, 1128-502 Rev P01, 1128-600 Rev P01, 1128-601 Rev P01, 1128- 700 Rev P01, 1128-701 Rev P01 and 1128-702 Rev P01. Procedural Matter 2. The appellant has submitted two revised plans with the appeal which materially change the substance of the original proposal. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, and the interest of fairness, I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of the proposal and accompanying plans that were before the Council at the time it came to its decision. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/17/3187888 2 Main Issues 3. The main issues are: whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Barons Court Conservation Area; and, the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the host property. Reasons Conservation Area 4. The appeal site is within the Barons Court Conservation Area (BCCA), the significance of which is largely derived from its tightly knit grid pattern of residential streets. The density of development is relatively high, with little space between buildings. Back gardens as such provide important features in maintaining separation and legibility throughout. 5. The appeal property is a two storey dwelling located on the small mews of Lanfrey Place behind the four storey Marzell House which contains commercial uses at ground floor with residential above. As a later addition to the terrace of which it forms a part, the property is shallower than the remainder of the terrace and of greater width. The plot is triangular in shape, with a small, irregular shaped back yard as a result. 6. Housing Policy 6 of the Council’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2013 (SPD) states that permission will not be granted for extensions within 4m of the rear boundary nor if the extension covers more than 50% of the area at the rear of the property. The proposed ground floor extension would infill the entire existing courtyard to the rear of the property. As such, it would conflict with the guidance set out in SPD Housing Policy 6. 7. However, the courtyard is presently bound by walls of considerable height which prevent any appreciation of it from ground floor level outside of the property. As such, it makes little contribution towards the spacing between the buildings and the infilling of the space would not therefore harmfully reduce the openness between the property and surrounding buildings. 8. Moreover, the extension to the first floor outrigger would only slightly increase its width, with the resultant extension covering less than half the original dwelling. It would also maintain the existing eaves and ridge height of the outrigger and most of the original property would remain visibly unaltered. 9. Furthermore, whilst the proposed first floor glazed screen would extend the full width of the newly created terrace area, it would be largely lightweight in appearance and would sit in the context of the four storey Marzell House adjacent which is commercial in appearance. It would also have a height of around 1.6m above terrace level and would sit well below the eaves of the building. As a result, the combined scale and massing of the first floor extension and glazed screen would appear subservient to the host property. 10. The rear of the property backs onto a service access road to the commercial units in Marzell House and, as a consequence, the proposal would not be widely visible within the public realm. Views of the proposal would be limited to private views within the upper floors of Marzell House and adjacent properties. Consequently, the proposal would not be visually dominant or discordant. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/17/3187888 3 11. I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Barons Court Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 (CS) which seeks a high standard of design. It would also accord with Policies DMG3 and DMG7 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Development Management Local Plan (2013) (DMLP) which seek a high standard of design in extensions and seek to protect, restore or enhance conservation areas. Whilst it would conflict with Housing Policy 6 of the SPD, it would accord with SPD Design Policies 31 and 34 which state that extensions should be appropriate to the original building. Living Conditions 12. The proposal would infill the entire rear yard area of the property. As such, it would result in the loss of all private external amenity space for occupiers of the property, in conflict with the guidance set out in SPD Housing Policy 6 which, in part, seeks to limit the size of rear extensions to ensure that they do not result in an unacceptable loss of existing amenity space. 13. Nevertheless, the existing courtyard is particularly small, amounting as it does to around 6m². It is also enclosed on all sides by the two storey walls of the building itself and the boundary walls of considerable height. I was able to see on my site visit that the space is of particularly poor quality and would be a significantly oppressive external amenity area for residents. 14. In contrast, the proposal would introduce a terrace at first floor level that would measure around 6.75m². An equivalent level of space would therefore be provided. Moreover, the terrace would be bound by 1.6m high obscurely glazed screening. This would result in an external space that would be a lot less oppressive than exists presently and would offer greater levels of daylight and outlook. Consequently, I find the proposal would improve the quality of outdoor amenity space for occupiers of the appeal property. 15. I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the host property, in accordance with Policies DMG3 and DMA9 of the DMLP which seek to take into account the relationships between buildings and existing residential amenities. Other Matters 16. I note the concerns of neighbours regarding the potential for noise and disturbance from the proposed construction works. However, I have no substantive evidence that construction works would create undue noise and disturbance and no reason to conclude that a condition restricting construction hours is necessary given that there is other legislation to control such matters. Conditions 17. A condition relating to the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty and relating to materials to preserve the character and appearance of the BCCA. Conclusions 18. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Jason Whitfield INSPECTOR