Appeal 3278313

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to carry out development without complying with condition No 2 of planning permission Ref 2019/2413, dated 06 December 2019 for the erection of dormer roof extension to main rear roof (with french doors and safety railings); erection of roof extension and formation of roof terrace with glazed screen surround over part of two storey back addition at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2020/3703, dated 30 September 2020, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted is as shown on approved plan reference 3626/2 [name] insofar as it relates to the dormer and roof extension, parapet walls, french doors with safety railings and roof terrace only and not the glazed screen.

Details of an obscure glazed screen to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the roof terrace hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development in regard to the approved screen shall be completed within three months of the date of this planning permission and retained thereafter.

The window in the side elevation of the rearmost bedroom hereby permitted shall be obscure glazed and non-opening (unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed). The window shall be retained as such thereafter.

The development that has been carried out at the appeal site was not in accordance with the plans approved as part of planning permission 2019/2413. Hence the appeal. The changes before me to consider, as effectively amended plans, include a wider rear extension, the use of a vertical side elevation instead of a roof slope, raising the party wall height, widening the roof terrace, reducing the height of the screening and using clear glazing stead of obscure.

The main issues are the effect of the amended plans and thus the development on a) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and b) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a two storey dwelling with rooms in its roof space. The latter formed by a dormer window extending out to the rear. There is a roof terrace attached thereto, atop the first floor. The street consists of a tight grain of terraced housing. Gardens are small and enclosed at the rear of each dwelling.

The roof terrace, due to is elevation, position and size, offers clear and unobstructed views into neighbouring gardens and windows at close quarters. Due to the span of the terrace and the use of low level clear glazing in its enclosure, these views are available from a number of points thereon and one does not have to be standing up or leaning over the edge to take advantage of them. Of particular concern is how close and direct views are available into the first floor windows of No 94, and its own roof terrace, and to a lesser extent 98 (the raising of the parapet wall limiting such views to having to stand up and look over). The limited size of the neighbouring gardens offers equally limited opportunity for sitting out and thus some form of private enjoyment. These areas are almost completely overlooked by the terrace due to its span and use of low clear glazing panels. The development in this regard therefore unacceptably reduces the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. The amended plans would thus, in their existing form, be unacceptable.

The appellant has asked that I consider the possibility of requiring the replacement of the existing screens with obscure glazing and making them taller. I note that this was a condition of the original planning permission. This would suitably address my concerns in terms of the privacy of neighbours. I have therefore imposed, as I have explained below, a similar condition regarding the height and nature of the roof terrace glazing.

With this in mind, the development would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours and thus, in regard to this main issue, comply with Policy DMS1 of the Local Plan1. Along with the advice contained in the Housing SPD2, this policy seeks to ensure that development does not harm the amenity 1 Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management [name] 2016 2 Wandsworth Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2016 of occupiers/users and nearby properties through, amongst other things, privacy.

The changes to the dormer window, the widening of the roof terrace and the raising of the parapet wall detail have all added bulk to the rear elevation of the host dwelling, at a height where it appears top heavy thereon. This was over and above that which was deemed acceptable by the Council. I am also mindful that the rear elevation of the dwelling, owing to its position at the far eastern end of [address], is highly visible in the [address] street scene.

Whilst larger than the permitted scheme, the appeal development is not substantially so, and the bulk of the main building can still be appreciated. In addition, the changes are in amongst a variety of similar extensions, of a variety of scales and bulk in themselves. The stepped dormers over the rear of No 100 on the corner of [address] and [address] particularly draw the eye in terms of views from [address], as well as some wider dormer windows (with noticeably prominent parapet walls) further west. The development therefore finds itself in something of a mixed context (through the exercise of permitted development rights or otherwise) to the point that I could not agree that it harms the character or appearance of the area.

In regard to this main issue therefore, I find no conflict with Policies DMS1 or DMH5 of the Local Plan which, along with the advice of the [name], set out to ensure that (in regard to alterations and extensions specifically) development is well designed, of a high quality that contributes positively to spatial character, is sympathetic to the style of building and not over dominant.

The Council have drawn my attention to a planning permission granted in 2006 for development which included a roof terrace to No 94. That scheme required agreement of screening therefore which was never resolved. It thus now stands with iron railings around it. I was able to observe this as part of my site visit. It seems the terrace has been installed in breech of its planning permission, or specifically conditions attached thereto, for some time. To the extent that the Council are no longer in a position to take enforcement action. That said, and whilst it offers some overlooking of neighbouring gardens, this roof terrace is set much further into the rear projection of the dwelling, limiting views to being further away and at more oblique an angle. It does not therefore give rise to the same level of harm as the appeal scheme as it stands. In any event, its circumstances are not the same.

Since the development subject of the appeal has been carried out, there is no need for a condition specifying the timescale for commencement of works. For the same reason, the materials condition is no longer required. The approved plans have been included, save for the detail in regard to the roof terrace screens which has not been approved. These are subject to their own condition to agree their details which should include them being 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the terrace and obscure glazed as per my findings on the first main issue. I have set out a reasonable time period of three months to have these screens installed. Since it is for compliance purposes and to further prevent overlooking as per the original planning permission, a condition requiring the window in the side elevation to be retained as obscure glazed and non opening (unless an opener is above 1.7 metres from the finished internal floor level) has also been included.

For the reasons and subject to the conditions I have set out above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and as such the appeal should be allowed in the terms I have described.