Erection of roof extension with rear dormer, first floor rear extension, extension to part of the boundary wall and associated alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 October 2018 by Elizabeth Pleasant DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3202600 33 Waldeck Road, Chiswick, London W4 3NL  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 Keith Rayfield against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 01161/33/P7 dated 31 January 2018, was refused by a notice dated 26 March 2018.  The development proposed is erection of roof extension with rear dormer, first floor rear extension, extension to part of the boundary wall and associated alterations. Replacement of windows with timber sash windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to erection of roof extension with rear dormer. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to first floor rear extension, extension to part of the boundary wall and associated alterations and replacement of windows with timber sash windows and planning permission is granted for first floor rear extension, extension to part of the boundary wall and associated alterations, and replacement of windows with timber sash windows at 33 Waldeck Road, Chiswick, London W4 3NL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 01161/33/P7 dated 31 January 2018, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Plan Views 1; Ground Floor Existing 2, First Floor Existing 3; Roof Existing 4; Elevations Existing 5 & 6; Sections Existing 7, 8 & 9; Ground Floor Proposal 10; First Floor Proposal 11; Elevation on Waldeck Road 14; Elevation Proposal with Colour and Material 15; Elevation on Pyrmont Road 16; Elevation Proposal 17 & 18. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan No 15. Procedural Matters Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3202600 2 2. The Council’s decision relates specifically to the rear roof extension and rear dormer. There is no dispute between the parities as to the acceptability of the other aspects of the proposal. I shall therefore confine my considerations to the proposed erection of roof extension and rear dormer. 3. Furthermore, the proposed first floor rear extension, extension to part of the boundary wall and associated alterations and the replacement of windows with timber sash windows are clearly severable physically from the proposed roof extension and rear dormer. Therefore I intend to issue a split decision in this case and grant planning permission for the proposed first floor rear extension, extension to part of the boundary wall and associated alterations and the replacement of windows with timber sash windows. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed roof extension and rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and the Strand on the Green Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling which fronts onto Pyrmont Road and is situated on the corner of Waldeck Road and within the Strand on the Green Conservation Area (CA). 6. The Strand on the Green Conservation Area Statement identifies the special interest of the CA as its use of and setting beside the water’s edge, with fishermen’s cottages, boat builders’ sheds, public houses, maltings and larger and more elegant private houses added in the late 18 century. The CA also includes the modest Victorian and Edwardian attractively detailed terraced housing to the rear of the riverside plots. In my view, the significance of the CA is derived from its overall picturesque charm, where a variety of buildings of common interest and scale, with narrow lanes and alleys, connect to the riverside and add to the leisure value of the pub and restaurant destinations. 7. The appeal property does not form part of the original terrace and is a later addition to it. However, despite its flat roof design, the property’s front elevation and form reflect the appearance and proportions of the host terrace. Moreover, the overall scale and appearance of the property is subservient to the original terrace and is not visually conspicuous within the street scene as a whole. In my view, the appeal property makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA. 8. The proposed roof extension would provide a pitched roof over the front half of the existing dwelling and a half pitch for the rear roof slope. In addition, a substantial dormer would be constructed directly on top of the existing two- storey rear outrigger. 9. I understand that the Council has previously granted planning permission for a pitched roof on this property, and I agree that this aspect alone would harmonise with the roofscape of the host terrace. However, the proposed rear dormer would to my mind be a dominant and discordant addition to the property and it would detract from the original simple form, proportions and intrinsic design characteristics of the host dwelling. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3202600 3 10. I have had regard to other box dormers within the rear roof slope of this terrace. However, those other dormers sit within the terrace’s rear roof slope and do not appear as dominant additions. Furthermore, the views of those other dormers from Waldeck Road are to an extent restricted by the pitched roofs of their rear outriggers, and their overall scale and appearance remain subordinate the original roof form. 11. I appreciate that in view of the flat roof design of the host property it is not possible to incorporate the proposed dormer into its original roof form, and the proposed extension therefore seeks to provide a contemporary design solution. However, the proposal would extend up from the flank wall of the rear outrigger and across its entire width. In my view, it would appear as an incongruous third floor box addition that would not respond well to the subordinate character and proportions of the host property. Furthermore, in view of its position on the corner of the street, it would be visually conspicuous. The proposal would fail to harmonise with the original scale and form of terraced properties which characterise this part of the CA. It would therefore have a harmful effect on the significance of the CA. 12. I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Strand on the Green Conservation Area. It would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA as a heritage asset. This harm is not outweighed by any public benefits, including the social benefits of providing improved living accommodation. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies in the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment, and it would conflict with Policies CC1, CC2, CC4 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan, 2015 which seek, amongst other things, to conserve and enhance the significance of the borough’ heritage assets and ensure that new development maintains the character of the area. I also find conflict with the Council’s adopted Residential Extension’s Guidelines, 2003 which aim to ensure that roof extensions and dormer additions are clearly subservient to the scale of the roof. Other Matters 13. I appreciate the appellant’s willingness to the incorporate a more traditional palate of materials, however this consideration would not overcome the concerns that I have over the overall scale and design of the proposed rear dormer. 14. I do not have the specific details of the dormer extensions referred to by the appellant at 64F Waldeck Road or 8 Pyrmont Road. However, No 64F is not situated within the CA and No 8 is not a corner property. These cases would not therefore appear to be directly comparable to this case which I have considered on its own merits. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that subject to conditions required to provide certainty and protect the character and appearance of the area, the appeal should be allowed insofar is relates to the proposed first floor rear extension, extension to part Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3202600 4 of the boundary wall and associated alterations and the replacement of windows with timber sash windows, and dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed roof extension and rear dormer. Elizabeth Pleasant INSPECTOR