Construction of a single-storey side/rear (wrap- around) extension, and internal and external alterations to enlarge the existing rear outrigger roof extension, including the installation of two additional windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 June 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/18/3198355 41 Derwentwater Road, Acton, London, W3 6DF  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 D Matthews against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing.  The application Ref 180014HH, dated 2 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 March 2018.  The development proposed is the construction of a single-storey side/rear (wrap- around) extension, and internal and external alterations to enlarge the existing rear outrigger roof extension, including the installation of two additional windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The Council notes that the single-storey extension element of the proposal is acceptable in design terms, and I concur with that view. The main issue in this case, therefore, is the effect of the rear roof extension on the character and appearance of the area around Derwentwater Road. Reasons 3. No 41 is a semi-detached house situated on the eastern side of Derwentwater Road. The road comprises a mix of semi-detached and terraced houses. No 41 has a gable-ended roof and a long rear two-storey outrigger. It has an existing L -shaped dormer on the rear roof slope and part of the rear outrigger, which apparently dates from an earlier hip-to-gable extension. The Council acknowledges that this existing roof extension is in line with permitted development rights. The proposed extension would continue the existing dormer by approximately 3.5 metres further to the rear. 4. The Council contends that the addition of a further volume of over 17 cubic metres would result in undue bulk and mass at roof level and that this would be incongruous and uncharacteristic to the host dwelling, the host pair of semi- detached houses and the general locality. The proposal would, in the view of the Council, unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings and would create an overbearing roofscape which appears as a third storey rather than a roof. The appellant contends that the extension would represent a relatively small addition to an existing dormer that benefits from permitted development rights, and that there is already a number of other examples of roof extensions to properties in the vicinity. Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/18/3198355 2 5. Whilst I have some sympathy with the case put forward by the appellant, I have no details of the background to the other examples that he has indicated, and it may well be that these also benefit from permitted development rights. At my site visit, and from other information provided, I noted also that most, if not all, of these examples appear to be set down clearly below the main roof ridge. The current dormer at No 41 is set in only by a very small extent from the gable elevation of the house and from the eaves, and is set down only by a very small amount from the main roof ridge. The proposed extension to this would bring it almost to the rear elevation of the outrigger, such that the combined dormer would cover virtually all of the rear roof slope of the house. 6. Given the length of the outrigger at No 41 and the earlier hip-to-gable extension at the property, I consider that the proposed extension would result in a significantly top-heavy appearance to the house that would effectively become a three-storey, predominantly flat-roofed dwelling. This would be out of character with the essential nature of the host property and the attached semi-detached property. It would also, by virtue of its scale when compared with other roof extensions to smaller dwellings in the vicinity, appear out of character with its surroundings. 7. In conclusion, I find that the proposed roof extension would result in an overbearing roofscape to the property, out of scale and character with the host property, the adjoining semi-detached house, and the area around Derwentwater Road. It would, therefore, conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan, which indicate that development should incorporate the highest quality design appropriate to its context, and have regard to the pattern and grain of the existing street in terms of scale, proportion and mass. It would also conflict with policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD, which indicate that developments should complement the building pattern and scale of built areas, and that they should have a positive visual impact. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR