Rear extension of both the existing ground and basement floor with the formation of a lightwell to the rear garden and new GRP flat roof with roof lights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2018 by K Ford MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/18/3210951 21 Hestercombe Avenue, London SW6 5LL  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 Finley against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.  The application Ref 2018/01508/FUL, dated 4 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 June 2018.  The development proposed is rear extension of both the existing ground and basement floor with the formation of a lightwell to the rear garden and new GRP flat roof with roof lights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 24 July 2018, replacing the version published in March 2012. The revised NPPF is applicable to planning decisions from the date of publication and is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal. The main parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised NPPF and its relevance to the determination of the appeal. References to the NPPF in this decision consequently reflect the revised document. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Central Fulham Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a 3 storey mid terrace dwelling with single storey rear extension spanning the full width of the property. The extension, which measures some 3.5 metres from the rear wall has a mixed mono pitched tiled roof with glazed pitched feature. Glazed doors on the rear elevation lead out onto a private garden enclosed on all sides by wall and fence boundaries. Neighbouring properties within the terrace also have rear extensions which are generally of similar depth to the appeal site, with only a few exceptions. 5. The site is located within the Central Fulham Conservation Area, which is predominantly residential in character. The cohesive design of the properties Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3210951 2 with regimented elevational treatments and uniform appearance is a prominent feature of the Conservation Area and contributes to its significance and importance. 6. Key Principle HS4 of the Council’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document requires extensions to integrate with the character of buildings and Conservation Areas. It seeks to avoid dominant rear extensions and to respect the symmetrical appearance of back additions in terraced houses. The proposal would elongate the existing full width extension by an additional one metre. Whilst one metre in itself is not excessive, when added to the existing not insubstantial 3.5 metres, it would become excessive even if more than 50% of the garden would remain. 7. Whilst the development would be subsidiary to the 3 storey main building in terms of height, its scale in terms of depth would be dominant and out of proportion with the original house and would be greater than the extensions of the immediate neighbours. It would also significantly disrupt the original form of the terrace as a whole. The application of architectural style and use of materials in keeping with the existing property would do little to mitigate the harm. Nor would the absence of sight of the development from public vantage points. The development would be readily visible from the rear of neighbouring properties. 8. The appellant has referred to other larger extensions in the terrace. However, I have very limited details of the schemes and the circumstances in which they were granted planning permission to enable me to draw meaningful comparisons with the case before me. In any event, each case is determined on its own merits. My assessment has been based on the information before me. 9. I am of the view that the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Central Fulham Conservation Area causing harm, albeit less than substantial, to its significance as a heritage asset. The proposal would conflict with paragraph 130 of the NPPF which does not support development that is of a poor design and fails to take opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area. 10. The proposal would also conflict with the part of Policy DC1 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan February 2018 (Local Plan) which requires new development to create a high quality urban environment that respects and enhances its townscape context and heritage assets. It would also conflict with the part of Policy DC4 of the Local Plan which requires new development to be compatible with the scale and character of existing development, neighbouring properties and its setting and the part of Policy DC8 of the Local Plan which requires new development to secure the long term future of heritage assets with alterations and extensions to buildings only permitted if the significance of a heritage asset is conserved or enhanced. Planning Balance and Conclusion 11. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3210951 3 should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 12. The appellant has identified that there is common ground between the main parties with regards the impact of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and flood risk. However, this reflects a lack of harm in these matters rather than benefits and as such I give such considerations neutral weight. 13. The proposal would be of benefit in providing larger and improved accommodation for the occupants of the property. Nonetheless, this is a personal rather than public benefit. No public benefits have been identified that would outweigh the harm that I have found. 14. For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Ford INSPECTOR