Development proposed are alterations including erection of extension above rear addition

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2019 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/18/3217274 Hill House, Holmbush Road, London, SW15 3LE • 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 Humfrey Fisher against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref 2018/3685, dated 13 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 24 September 2018. • The development proposed are alterations including erection of extension above rear addition. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations including erection of extension above rear addition at Hill House, Holmbush Road, London, SW15 3LE in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2018/3685, dated 13 July 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule. Preliminary and procedural matters 2. The appeal property is located within the Rusholme Road Conservation Area (CA). 3. In the interests of accuracy and conciseness the Council’s description of the proposal has been utilised in this appeal in preference to that used in the original application form. 4. The Council objections are plainly set out in its decision notice, albeit in a single paragraph. The appellant says in his grounds of appeal that ‘In assessing the proposed development the LPA concluded that there would be no material adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring property.’ That is not the case; amenity issues are assessed in the officer report, and the objection raised in this regard is reflected in one of the Council’s reasons for refusal. The main issues 5. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property; whether the character or appearance of the CA would be preserved or enhanced, and the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular reference to privacy. Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3217274 2 Reasons Character & appearance 6. The host property is a substantial part brick-built and part rendered detached villa built at the turn of the 19th century. It stands at the junction of Holmbush Road and Lytton Grove. It displays several design characteristics of the period including a turret and projecting bays. Just over 10 years ago planning permission was granted for a flat roof single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling. That permission was implemented, and the appellant intends to build over it. 7. The Council’s opposition to the scheme on design grounds is largely based on views expressed by its Conservation Officer in the following terms: The proposed roof structure would transform an existing fairly recessive part of this building into a much more dominant and incongruous entity at the back of the pavement edge, which would be much more visible in the street scene. The volume of the proposed roof would allow this element of the building to compete for dominance with the main house owing to its forward position in the plot and its visibility set forward of the building. 8. To my mind, the single storey extension does little to enhance the building or its surroundings; indeed its shape and design appear at odds with the rather more ‘flamboyant’ appearance of the host property. The proposed roof, particularly taking account of its flared, crowned shape, would look more in keeping with the rather elaborate patterns of the host property than does the existing flat roof. 9. Although partly screened by a hedge and trees, the new roof would be visible outside the site. However, it would not be perceived as being of such a scale that, as alleged, it would compete for dominance with the main house. On the contrary, its highest point equates to the eaves level of Hill House. I find its scale to be acceptably modest when compared with the scale of the host property as a whole. The proposed dormers are well designed and proportionate, reflecting those comprised within the main roof. 10. I conclude that the appellant’s proposals would sit acceptably in this spatial context, and would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. The character and appearance of the CA would thus be preserved. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policies DMS1, DMS2 & DMH5 of Wandsworth’s Development Management Policies Document (DMPD) seeking to ensure a high quality of design of development, including alterations and extensions to buildings, especially within the Borough’s conservation areas. Living conditions 11. The officer report on the application contains a section dealing with amenity issues, and in particular, addresses concerns raised by the residents of No 26 Lytton Grove, the next-door property, at application stage. I share the outcome of the assessment made by officers, who consider that most of the concerns could not be supported in planning terms. 12. However, the one remaining officer concern centres on the potential loss of privacy to the residents of No 26 given that one of the proposed dormers faces Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3217274 3 directly towards their property. I share this concern, but consider that any potential loss of privacy to the neighbours could be satisfactorily resolved by a condition requiring the fenestration of that dormer to be obscurely glazed, and fixed shut up to a defined height. 13. Accordingly, subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition, I find no conflict with those provisions of policy DMS1 of the DMPD directed to ensuring that new development does not harm the amenity of occupiers/users and nearby properties. Conditions 14. The Council’s suggested condition requiring the scheme to be built in accordance with the approved plans is imposed in the interest of certainty. 15. In the interests of visual amenity the Council’s suggested condition relating to materials shall be imposed. 16. As indicated earlier, a condition directed to protecting the privacy of the residents of No 26 Lytton Grove is considered necessary. 17. All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into account, including the references made to the Conservation Area Appraisal, but none is of sufficient strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3. The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the proposed dormer window facing No 26 Lytton Grove has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. 4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Refs. P-01, P-02: P-03 & P-04. Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3217274 4