Extension and renovation of a terraced dwelling house on all levels including a side return and loft dormer extension extending partially over outrigger

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2018 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/18/3207666 74 Beryl Road, London, W6 8JT • 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 Jeremy Cole against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. • The application Ref 2018/01502/FUL dated 27 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 July 2018. • The development proposed is described as extension and renovation of a terraced dwelling house on all levels including a side return and loft dormer extension extending partially over outrigger. Preliminary matters 1. Since the Appeal application was refused by the Council the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (Framework). I consider that the changes in the new Framework do not have a material impact on the consideration of the merits of the Appeal proposal. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed loft dormer extension extending partially over outrigger. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed side return at 74 Beryl Road, London, W6 8JT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2018/01502/FUL dated 27 October 2017 and the plans submitted with it, 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 proposed side return hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they are relevant to the permitted development: 1710.001, 1710.005, 1710.006, 1710.007, 1710.014 REV A, 1710.015, 1710.020 REV D, 1710.021 REV A and 1710.022 REV A. 3) Prior to the commencement of the single storey rear extension hereby permitted, details of the external materials and finishes of the metal window/door frames and roof to be used in its construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3207666 2 Main Issues 3. The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the host terrace. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 72 Beryl Road (No.72) and 60 St.Dunstans Road (No.60), with particular regard to visual impact. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The Appeal site is located within a row of uniformly designed terraced two storey houses with small rear gardens, which back onto a similar row of terraced houses. The dwellings have shallow pitched slate roofs and some of the roofs are separated by low parapet walls. The dwellings also have two storey rear wings, which are attached to the adjoining projection on one side, leaving a narrow passages between the pairs of rear wings. 5. Some of the dwellings have rear dormer extensions and some of these have involved raising the ridge heights of the dwellings by a modest amount. The dormer extensions have blended into the rear garden environment with varying degrees of success, depending on their size, design and the external materials used. The modest ridge extensions are largely unnoticeable within the street scene and the proposed increase in the height of the Appeal dwelling would similarly blend in with the existing roof-scape. This is due to the modest increase in height and the fact that it would be contained between the side parapet walls of the dwelling. 6. A number of dwellings in the locality have flat roofed extensions over part of their rear two storey wings. Whilst the limited depth of these extensions reduces their visual impact, due to their projection and angular design they are nonetheless prominent within the rear garden environment. 7. The Appeal proposal includes a large flat roofed rear dormer extension which would cover the rear roof slope. It also includes a flat roofed extension above the existing two storey rear wing, which would project over more than 75% of the rear projection. Both of the proposed extensions would be clad in slate and whilst the dormer window would be vertical the extension over the rear wing would have a very slight pitch. 8. At ground floor level the scheme includes a flat roofed single storey extension which would fill the passage between the rear projection and the side boundary of the property. This boundary is shared with No.72, which has a glazed extension filling the gap between the shared boundary and its rear projection. This glazed extension has a single pitched roof which projects a short distance above the height of the boundary wall. 9. Regarding design the Framework, policies DC1 and DC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan), seek to ensure that new development adds to the quality of the area. New development should respect and enhance the townscape context and heritage assets within the urban environment and demonstrate good design. Extensions should be of a high standard of design and should be compatible with the scale and character Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3207666 3 of existing development. In assessing proposals account will be taken of their scale, form, height, proportion, materials, building features and impact on skyline silhouette. 10. The proposed rear dormer extension would be bulky due to its combined height, width and depth. However, it would be partially contained behind the existing rear wing and would be partially screened by the rear wing at No.72. As a consequence, the proposed dormer extension would sit comparatively comfortably within the rear garden environment. 11. The proposed flat roofed extension would project over most of the existing rear wing and it would have almost vertical walls. As a result, the flat roof extension would appear bulky and its deep westerly wall would be visually stark. It would appear as a prominent and discordant feature within the immediate back garden environment and in the outlook from nearby dwellings, where it would appear top heavy, poorly proportioned and out of keeping with the roofscape of the host dwelling, the terrace and the locality. 12. As the proposed flat roofed extension is an integral part of the rear dormer extension, this means that the whole of the roof extension would materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace and the surrounding area. This harm would outweigh the benefits for the Appellant and their family that would result from the additional living accommodation. This is not a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by condition. 13. The proposed single storey extension would be comparable in size to the existing extension at No.72. Although it would be taller than the extension at No.72, it would be set in from the joint boundary and would be partially screened by the frame of the extension at No.72. Its flat roof would not look out of place alongside the almost flat roofs of the rear projecting wings in the immediate area and its large area of glazing to the rear would contained within the small rear garden. Accordingly, this aspect of the scheme would be readily assimilated into the rear garden environment. This is subject to the use of appropriate external materials which is something that can be adequately dealt with through the imposition of a condition. It is noted that the Council has raised no concerns about this element of the scheme. 14. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed combined roof extensions would materially and unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace. Accordingly, it would conflict with, policies DC1 and DC4 of the Local Plan, key principle CAG3 of the SPD and the Framework. Conversely, the proposed single storey flat roofed extension would blend in satisfactorily with the host dwelling and the rear garden environment. It would therefore comply with the above policies and advice. Living conditions 15. To protect the outlook of the occupiers of adjoining and adjacent properties the SPD advises that rear extensions should not breach a vertical 45 degree line between the top edge of any proposed extension and the adjacent rear boundary of the site. Similarly a 45 degree line should not be breached between the top edge of the proposed extension and a point no lower than two metres above ground level where the adjoining dwelling has ground floor habitable room windows facing the proposed extension. In relation to privacy, Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3207666 4 any new windows should be positioned at least 18 metres from existing habitable room windows in adjacent properties. 16. The existing roof of the Appeal dwelling already breaches this advice and the proposed extension would exacerbate the situation. The proposed extension over the rear wing would have an unduly enclosing impact and would be overbearing in the outlook from all of the adjacent habitable room windows and the rear gardens at both No.72 and No.60. For this reason the proposed flat roofed extension over the rear wing would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of those properties. 17. The proposed ground floor extension would be largely screened from the neighbouring properties and would not have any windows that would result in any overlooking. As such it would not have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.72 and No.60. 18. Finally, the proposed roof extension would be largely screened from the outlook from 76 Beryl Road by the existing rear projection to that property. As a result it would not have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of that property due to visual impact or loss of privacy. 19. I conclude that the proposed roof extensions would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.72 and No.60 due to its visually overbearing impact. These elements of the proposed scheme would therefore conflict with policies DC4 and HO11 of the Local Plan and key principles HS6 and HS7(i) of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Guidance - Supplementary Planning Document. Together and amongst other things these policies and key principles seek to ensure that new development respects the principles of good neighbourliness. New development should not have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbours, in relation to privacy, light, outlook and openness. However, the proposed ground floor extension would not have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent properties and would comply with the above policies and advice. Conclusion 20. The conclusions on both main issues amount to compelling reasons for dismissing the Appeal in relation to the proposed roof extensions, although the proposed ground floor extension is acceptable. As the proposed ground floor extension is not physically or functionally linked to the proposed roof extension it is possible to issue a split decision in this instance. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR