Rear/extended loft conversion

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/18/3207826 50 Mendora Road, London, SW6 7NB • 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 Richard Sevier against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. • The application Ref 2018/01344/FUL dated 23 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2018. • The development proposed is described as rear/extended loft conversion. Preliminary matters 1. Whilst the proposed extension is linked to the existing dormer extension, the Council’s description for the scheme more accurately describes the Appeal scheme as erection of a rear extension at second floor level, on top of the existing back addition. Accordingly, in the interests of precision, the Council’s description is used in this decision. 2. Since the Appeal application was refused by the Council the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (Framework).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 3. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 4. 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 52 Mendora Road (No.52), with particular regard to visual impact. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The Appeal site is located within a row of uniformly designed terraced dwellings with shallow pitched slate or tiled roofs. To the rear the dwellings have a variety of attached single and two storey rear wings with predominantly shallow pitched roofs. A number of the dwellings have an assortment of extensions, including roof dormers, extensions to the rear wings and Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3207826 2 extensions alongside the rear wings. These have blended into the rear garden environment with varying degrees of success, depending of their size, prominence and appearance. 6. The Appeal property has a large flat roofed rear dormer extension which covers most of the rear roof-slope of the property. This dormer includes a pair of full length glazed doors and two irregular designed and spaced windows. The adjoining dwelling at 48 Mendora Road (No.48), has a rear dormer extension and a deep flat roofed extension over most of its rear two storey wing. The Council has advised that this was constructed several years ago on the basis that it fell within permitted development tolerances. It is now considered that the extension did require planning permission. 7. Together and amongst other things the Framework, policies DC1 and DC4 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan), seek to ensure that new development adds to the quality of the area and respects and enhances the townscape context. Extensions should be of a high standard of design and should be compatible with the scale and character of existing development. In assessing proposals account will be taken of their scale, form, height, proportion, vertical and horizontal emphasis and impact on the skyline silhouette. 8. In applying these policies, the Council has stated that it looks to approve extensions over the rear projections where they do not project over more than 50% of the rear projection and incorporate 70 degree mansard roof designs. 9. The proposal includes the erection of a flat roofed extension with vertical walls above most of the existing rear wing. The existing parapet wall between the Appeal property and the rear wing at No.48 would be increased in height and the proposed extension would have windows in its westerly and southerly elevations. These windows, are of different designs and are out of alignment with the existing windows at ground and first floor level. 10. Due to its combined height, depth and angular form the proposed extension would appear utilitarian and bulky. It would be unduly prominent 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. Due to its design and alignment the proposed window in the westerly elevation of the proposed extension would add to its unbalanced and incongruous appearance. 11. 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. 12. It is acknowledged that the proposed extension would be similar to the existing extension at No.48. However, rather than set a precedent that extension serves to highlight the prominence of such extensions and the overbearing impact they can have on the outlook from the adjoining and adjacent properties. Conversely, the existing shallow extensions above the rear wings in the area, retain a sense of space within the small rear gardens and in the outlook from the adjacent properties. They also retain the identity of the original rear wing concerned. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3207826 3 13. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed roof extension would materially and unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace. Accordingly, in this respect it would conflict with policies DC1 and DC4 of the Local Plan. Living conditions 14. Policies DC4 and HO11 of the Local Plan and Key Principles HS6 and HS7 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fullham Planning Guidance - Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), seek to protect the living conditions of existing residents from unacceptable harm. The SPD advises that extensions should not breach specified vertical 45 degree lines between the top of any proposed extension and the adjacent rear boundary of the site or any habitable ground floor room windows in the adjacent dwelling, which face towards the proposed extension. In relation to privacy, any new windows should be positioned at least 18 metres from existing habitable room windows in adjacent properties. 15. Whilst the Council does not refer to the living conditions of the occupiers of 47 and 49 Prothero Road (No.47 & No.49) in their decision notice, they are referred to in the Council’s delegated report. In particular, in their delegated report the Council states that the proposed extension would detract from the living conditions of the occupiers of No.49 due to its proximity and visual impact. As such, the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of No.47 and No.49 have been taken into consideration in the determination of this Appeal. 16. The existing rear wing is already prominent in the outlook from the rear windows and gardens at No.47 and No.49. However, it follows the rhythm of the host terrace and is an integral part of the character and appearance of the terrace. Due to its angular shape, size and unbalanced design the proposed extension would appear top heavy and unbalanced and would materially add to the sense of enclosure in the outlook from the adjacent rear windows and garden at No.52, No.47 and No.49. For this reason, the proposed extension would be visually overbearing and would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.52, No.47 and No.49. 17. The proposed window in the westerly elevation of the proposed extension would facilitate views down and into the adjacent habitable room windows at No.52. Whilst there is already some inter-looking between the two properties, the proposed window would exacerbate the situation and add to the overbearing impact the proposed extension would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.52. The proposed window in the southerly elevation of the proposed extension would detract from the living conditions of the occupiers of No.49 for the same reason. 18. I conclude that the proposed roof extension would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.52, No.47 and No.49 due to its visually overbearing impact. The scheme would therefore conflict with policies DC4 and HO11 of the Local Plan and key principles HS6 and HS7 of the SPD. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3207826 4 Conclusion 19. The conclusions on both main issues amount to compelling reasons for dismissing the Appeal Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR