For a second floor loft extension, floor plan redesign and all associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/18/3213589 54 Biscay Road, London, W6 8JN  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 Saidat Khan against the decision of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Council.  The application Ref 2018/01883/FUL, dated 5 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 August 2018.  The development proposed is for a second floor loft extension, floor plan redesign and all associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon: the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the terrace of which it forms part; and the living conditions of the occupiers of 52 Biscay Road and 53 Beryl Road, with specific reference to outlook, daylight and privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 1. The proposal would comprise a roof extension to one that currently exists over a two storey outrigger, which combines with a box dormer to the rear of the main roof of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, there is already a quite substantial area of flat roof that has been constructed on the appeal dwelling which runs counter to the traditional design of the dwelling and the terrace of which it forms part. 2. The proposal would bring built form at second floor level almost in line with the rear elevation of the outrigger. Combined with the existing extensions I consider that the proposal would give the appeal dwelling an over-developed appearance which would also be harmful to the character of the terrace of which it forms part. 3. The dwellings to the rear in Beryl Road have similar extensions to those that currently exist on the appeal dwelling, and these don’t extend to the rear of their respective outriggers. I do however note reference to extensions that have been constructed at 70 Biscay Road and whilst it is not for me to Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/18/3213589 2 comment on the appropriateness of this or otherwise, ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits. 4. Consequently I consider that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the wider terrace and conflicts with Policies DC1 and DC4 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018) (LP), which together require all development within the Borough to create a high quality urban environment that respects and enhances its townscape context; and where concerning alterations and extensions to existing buildings require them to be compatible with the scale and character of the existing development, neighbouring properties and their setting. Living Conditions 5. I note on drawing No. 480-04 Rev. A that a 45 degree line in section has been shown from the centre of the nearest first floor window of 52 Biscay Road which demonstrates that the proposal would unlikely give rise to a material loss of daylight to this window. However by virtue of the increased verticality of the rear outrigger, the proposal would create a greater tunnelling effect and would have an over-bearing impact upon this neighbouring window. In addition the proposal would also bring the built form, and a habitable room window closer to the rear elevation of 53 Beryl Road, thereby increasing the potential for direct and mutual overlooking. 6. Therefore, whilst I accept that the appellants sought to overcome the Council’s concerns, these do not go far enough; and notwithstanding the fact that I agree that there would be no overlooking of 52 Biscay Road, nonetheless, the proposal would give rise to loss of outlook from that property, as well as a loss of privacy to 53 Beryl Road. I find the proposal conflicts with LP Policy HO11 which is concerned with detailed residential standards and amongst other things, seeks to protect privacy enjoyed by neighbours, and outlook from windows in adjoining properties, as well as openness between properties. Conclusion 7. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR