Loft conversion with a sloped roof to the front and a Mansard construction to the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 August 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/18/3204177 81 Askew Crescent, London, W12 9DW  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 Tom Miller against the decision of London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council.  The application Ref 2018/00060/FUL, dated 8 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 March 2018.  The development proposed is loft conversion with a sloped roof to the front and a Mansard construction to the rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The new National Planning Policy Framework was issued just before the site visit. The main parties had referred to parts of the previous Framework. In the interests of fairness, they have been offered the opportunity to comment on equivalent provisions in the new Framework. I have have had regard to the comments I have received on paragraphs within Section 12, “Achieving well- designed places”. Main Issue 3. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the streetscene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terrace Victorian townhouse that presents to the front streetscene two main floors of accommodation above a basement. The proposal would add a bedroom and en suite to the top of the house. The mansard form at the rear of the conversion would sit behind the retained brick parapet that follows the distinctive open ‘V’ profile of the London valley (or butterfly) roof. At the front, a shallower, longer slope would rise upwards away from the parapet, to a flat-roofed section towards the rear of the new roof. 5. Both the front and the back of the appeal property and its terrace are visible in the streetscene, from Askew Crescent and St Elmo Road respectively. The proposal would require existing chimney stacks to be raised. From observing the existing stacks at the front, it is clear that the front roof slope would be seen from both near the house and more obliquely along the road. The rear Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3204177 2 stacks in particular would be considerably heightened, to accommodate raising the roof by around 1.5 metres, an amount which I estimate from the drawings. The height of the new roof would be more evident from the rear, where the mansard would rise considerably over its neighbours and the roofline of the terrace as a whole. 6. The proposed roof form reflects objections raised to an earlier scheme that was dismissed on appeal (Ref APP/H5390/D/15/3141087, dated 30 March 2016). That scheme differed from the present proposal in having a vertical back wall that obliterated the distinctive open ‘V’, and a more typical mansard form at the front. Although these are material differences from the present proposal, I find that I agree with many of my predecessor’s observations about the context of the appeal site, for example in paragraph 6 op cit.. “A particular characteristic of the terrace in which no.81 stands is the retention of the traditional London or butterfly roof forms that lie behind a prominent parapet that tops the front elevations. There are some small variations in the roof form but the traditional has been retained throughout. Furthermore, the rear of the terrace, whilst much altered at ground and, to a lesser extent, first floor level, is distinctly visible from St Elmo Road to the west and presents, to quote the Council, ‘...an attractive, unaltered rhythm of butterfly roofs’.” 7. Despite its mid-terrace position, both the front and the rear of the proposed loft conversion would be prominent in the local streetscene. I consider that it would appear as an incongruous addition, significantly changing the character and appearance of the house but also detracting considerably from the coherence of the terrace as a whole. 8. The appellant has argued that there are inconsistencies in the appearance of the appeal terrace, and numerous examples of roof extensions in the vicinity. I did observe some variations within the terrace, for example minor changes in the height of the front parapet and in fenestration. However, the overall impression of no.s 69-87 is one of a strong and unified form and appearance, particularly at roof level. I was able to see a number of the other roof extensions referred to me in the locality. It is true that on part of one side of St Elmo Road, north of its junction with Askew Crescent, mansard roof extensions have almost become the norm. However, I did not find that such extensions prevailed in all the surrounding roads, while none occurs on properties fronting the appeal section of Askew Crescent. Moreover, there are no existing roof extensions in the appeal terrace that could provide any degree of appropriateness or “precedence” for the appeal proposal. 9. I conclude that the proposal would detract significantly from the character and appearance of the building and the streetscene. It would conflict with Policies 7.4 & 7.6 in The London Plan (2016), concerning local character and architecture respectively; and with Policy DC4 in the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018) which, among other things, requires roof top additions to take into account impact on the skyline silhouette. 10. The Framework continues to recognise good design as a key aspect of sustainable development. Development is expected to be sympathetic to local character and history. I acknowledge that the development may be intended to accommodate the needs of a growing family and that, according to the appellant, immediate neighbours have not objected. However, I consider that this should not demand a compromise on good design, particularly in this case Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3204177 3 with regard to its context. Thus on balance, I find that the proposal would fall short with regard to the Framework, in terms of achieving well-designed places, having regard to the area’s defining characteristics. 11. Planning permission should therefore be withheld, and I dismiss the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR