Appeal 3271171

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development, as provided on the application form, does not include the proposed roof terrace. Therefore, in the interests of completeness, the encompassing description, as provided by the Council on the decision notice, has been used.

The main issues are the effect of: • the proposed front roof extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the proposed rear roof terrace on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with regard to overlooking; and • the proposed rear roof terrace on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is a tree-lined residential street with two and three-storey Victorian terraces on either side. The appeal site sits within a row of eight two-storey terraces with pitched roofs and bay windows. The proposal seeks to erect a front roof extension with two windows and to install French doors leading to a newly introduced roof terrace at second floor level, to the rear of the property.

The roofline along [address], and specifically in the section of the appeal site, remains largely without significant alterations. Pitched roofs are an intrinsic part of the character of the area. The proposed roof extension, by virtue of its mass and design, would be a dominant addition that would undermine the original roofline and detract from the front roof profile. The existing roofscape is harmonious, with the exception of No. [address], which unbalances the defined pattern. The proposed development would further emphasise this imbalance.

No. [address] is the only example of a roof extension within the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, the extension at No.86 is historic, it appears as an outlier and is out of keeping with the established character of the area. It only serves to demonstrate the harmful impact of such a front roof extension in this particular context. Adding a further extension would simply erode important elements of the character and appearance of the area. Although other nearby examples have been provided by the appellant, the appeal site has been considered in its relevant context with other properties in this section of [address].

For the reasons given above the proposed front roof extension would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to accord with Policies DC1 and DC4 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (HFLP), adopted 2018. Together, these Policies seek to ensure that development is of a high quality and responds well to its surroundings. The Council have included Policy HO11 in their reason for refusal, however, as this Policy deals with living conditions it is not considered to be relevant to this main issue.

The area to the rear of the appeal site has a degree of overlooking as part of its character, with [address] and [address] running perpendicular and those properties facing in toward each other. Due to this nature the proposed roof terrace would extend views into the rear gardens and windows of neighbouring properties to a greater extent than is currently the case. Specific concern has been raised about the bathroom window of [address] and on the site visit it was noted that the living conditions of occupants at [address] would also be impacted by overlooking.

The plans do not propose any visibility screening and, due to the positioning of the roof terrace and its relationship with the neighbouring properties, it would be difficult to ensure that the privacy of neighbouring occupants would be protected. Therefore, the proposed development would be detrimental to the living conditions of these occupants.

For the reasons given above the proposed roof terrace would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties. It would contravene Policy HO11 of the HFLP, which encourages good neighbourliness through the protection of residential amenity and privacy. Furthermore, the development would not comply with the aspects of Policy DC4 of the HFLP that also promote good neighbourliness. Additionally, the development would not comply with [name] HS8 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document, adopted 2018. [name] seeks to ensure that residential amenity is protected, specifically within the context of overlooking from balconies and terraces.

On the site visit it was observed through a rear window of the appeal site that many properties within the visible vicinity, including some neighbouring, have roof terraces of a similar design. Although the proposed roof terrace would be visible from very small parts of the public domain it would not appear prominent or out of context with the surrounding area. Many nearby examples can be seen more prominently than the appeal site between houses on both [address] and [address]. Though some other nearby examples may not benefit from planning permission, it is apparent that roof terraces are characteristic of the area. The proposed design would be in keeping with other terraces and continue the pattern of development.

For the reasons given above, the roof terrace would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policies DC1 and DC4 of the HFLP, adopted 2018. Together, these policies ensure that development is of a high quality and responds well to its surroundings. The Council have included Policy HO11 in their reason for refusal, however, as this Policy deals with living conditions it is not considered to be relevant to this

Overall, although the roof terrace would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, this is a neutral matter and does not mitigate harm that would be caused by other parts of the development. Although the development would provide additional space, both internally and externally, for the occupants, this would not outweigh the harm that has been found. The proposal would not accord with the Development Plan when it is considered as a whole. For the reasons given above, I recommend the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.