Installation of a balustrade at first floor level for safety on the existing flat roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2018 by Julie Dale Clark BA (Hons) MCD DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/18/3197042 28 Culmstock Road, London SW11 6LX  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 Ian Shelley against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth.  The application Ref 2017/1654, dated 3 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 December 2017.  The development proposed is installation of a balustrade at first floor level for safety on the existing flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a balustrade at first floor level for safety on the existing flat roof at 28 Culmstock Road, London SW11 6LX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/1654, dated 3 March 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:  Site Location Plan; and  Drawing Nos: - 1E; 2E; 3E; 4E; 1P; 2P; 3P; 4P. Main Issues 2. I consider that the main issue is the effect of the effect of the proposal on (1) the character and appearance of the area; and (2) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached house with a flat roofed rear extension. Access to this roof is currently possible from doors from an upper floor bedroom. At the time of my visit the roof had planters positioned around its edges. The roof seems to have been accessible and useable as a roof terrace for Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3197042 2 a number of years albeit without any formal status. The proposed glass balustrade would formalise the roof as a terrace. The balustrade would comprise of obscure glass panels to the sides and rear. 4. Whilst the terrace is in an elevated position I do not consider that the balustrade would appear unsympathetic or incongruous. It would be seen against the rear of the house and in this urban setting where there are dormer extensions in a much more elevated position, including to the neighbouring house, the balustrade would not appear intrusive. 5. Policy DMS 11 sets out general criteria for new development including, amongst other things, a requirement to provide high quality design that contributes positively to local spatial character. Policy DMH 5 relates to alterations and extensions to existing residential properties which should be well designed and not dominate or compete with the original building, amongst other things. I do not consider that the proposal would conflict with either of these policies and the character and appearance of the area would not be harmed. Living Conditions 6. In addition to the above, Policy DMS 1 requires development not to harm the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties. The Council’s Housing SPD2 specifically refers to roof terraces, amongst other things, and notes that they have the potential to intrude on neighbours privacy and possibly lead to disturbance from noise. 7. The current use of the flat roof as a terrace results in some overlooking of neighbouring properties and the erection of a balustrade may increase its use as it would be a much safer area to use. However, the balustrade would be 1.7 metres high at the sides which would improve privacy for the occupiers of the nearest neighbours. Whilst the formalisation of the roof terrace may increase its usage I do not consider that the neighbours living conditions would be unduly harmed and no conflict with Policy DMS 1 or the SPD would occur. Conditions 8. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in light of the Planning Practice Guidance3. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The Council also suggest a condition preventing the use of the terrace until the balustrade has been erected. However, the effect of this would be to remove the current, and apparently established use of the roof. I consider that this would be unreasonable and therefore do not intend to impose it. Conclusion 9. I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area nor on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management Policies Document, Adopted March 2016. 2 Wandsworth Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document Housing, Adopted November 2016 (SPD). 3 Planning Practice Guidance, 6 March 2014. Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3197042 3 neighbouring properties. It would not conflict with policies DMS 1 or DMS 5 or the Council’s Housing SPD. Therefore the appeal succeeds. J D Clark INSPECTOR