Installation of a balustrade around the flat roof of the existing garage adjoining the side of the house at first floor level, in connection with its use as a roof terrace, with a 1.8 metre high obscured glazed screen to the rear and rear side elevations and a metal handrail and balustrade to the front and front side elevations; installation of a door to the flank elevation of the house at first floor level, to provide access to the proposed roof terrace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 February 2021 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 March 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/20/3265665 4 Filmer Road, London SW6 7BT • 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 and Mrs G Bowring against the decision of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. • The application Ref 2019/03507/FUL, dated 25 November 2019, was refused by notice dated 16 October 2020. • The development proposed is the installation of a balustrade around the flat roof of the existing garage adjoining the side of the house at first floor level, in connection with its use as a roof terrace, with a 1.8 metre high obscured glazed screen to the rear and rear side elevations and a metal handrail and balustrade to the front and front side elevations; installation of a door to the flank elevation of the house at first floor level, to provide access to the proposed roof terrace. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the preservation or enhancement of its significance as a non-designated heritage asset and whether it would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the Central Fulham Conservation Area (the CA), and • the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential dwellings, with reference to privacy. Procedural Matters 3. As the description of development varies between the documents submitted for the purpose of this appeal, I have used the description of the development from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham decision notice and the appellant’s appeal statement, as it has been used by both parties and accurately describes the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/20/3265665 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is designated as non-designated heritage asset recognised by its local designation as a building of merit, which is located within the CA and contribute to its significance. 5. The CA is a heritage asset to which I have a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out how planning authorities should seek the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and establishes that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. 7. The appeal property is located in a small cluster of properties that are either in, or appear to have originally been in, commercial use. Along with the appeal property, these are more decorative than the simple late 19th century 2 storey palisaded terraced houses that comprise the rest of the street and much the CA. The proposal would add a roof terrace with obscured glazed screens and metal balustrade on to the existing flat roofed single storey garage attached to the appeal property. 8. The proposed glazed screens and metal balustrade would be very apparent in views of the property at street level and from surrounding dwellings. The proposal would be utilitarian in its design approach, which would contrast with the decorative nature of the appeal property, including the existing metal balustrade above the entrance to the appeal property and its other original architectural features. 9. The proposal would result in a visually disproportionate and incongruous addition to the appeal property that would detract from its character and appearance, to the extent that it would materially harm the character and appearance of the host property and that of the local area. 10. I find, therefore, that the proposed development would harm the historic character and appearance of the dwelling and would not sustain or enhance the significance of the building as a non-designated historic asset, the harm to which would be less than substantial. 11. The proposal would also detract from the contribution the appearance and character of the appeal property makes in defining the significance of the CA. The proposed development does not, therefore preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, the harm to which would be less than substantial. 12. For these reasons the proposed development would be contrary to Policies DC1, DC4 and DC8 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan) and Key Principles BM2 and CAG3 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (the Guidance), which seek to ensure that roof extensions are of a high standard of design, Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/20/3265665 3 reflect the character and appearance of the existing development, respect and enhance its townscape and conserve and enhance heritage assets including conservation areas and non-designated heritage assets. For these reasons the proposal would also not accord with sections 12 and 16 of the Framework. Living Conditions 13. The proposed roof terrace would have glazed screening to the rear to eliminate overlooking to the rear of residential properties that front on to Sherbrooke Road. However, the proposed metal balustrade would not similarly eliminate overlooking from the terrace of residential properties opposite on Filmer Road, which is a narrow residential street, where, even with the small front gardens the overlooking that would be afforded by the proposal would be intrusive. 14. The appellant has drawn my attention to a roof terrace at a similar level to the proposal on a property on the opposite side of the street, located on the corner with its junction with Dawes Road. No material has been provided on the planning status of this terrace. However, due to the location of this terrace it does not immediately overlook residential properties to the same extent as would be afforded by the proposal, and I have therefore given this little weight in my considerations and have considered the proposal on its own merits. 15. The opportunities for intrusive overlooking from the proposal would result in a loss of privacy to the occupiers of residential properties opposite the appeal site, to a degree that would be harmful to their living conditions. This would be contrary to policies HO11 and DC4 of the Local Plan and Key Principle HS8 of the Guidance, which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development does not cause material harm through loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Planning Balance and Conclusion 16. I acknowledge the appellants view that the proposed roof terrace would better meet the needs of existing and future occupiers of the dwelling. However, in general, planning decisions should be made in the wider public interest. In this context, the harm I have identified, including the less than substantial harm to the CA and the non-designated heritage asset, outweighs these benefits. Dismissing the appeal is a proportionate response in this instance. Victor Callister INSPECTOR