Appeal 3278462

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear roof extension, including raising the ridge and replacement of all existing single glazed timber sash windows with new double glazed double sash windows at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 2021/01243/FUL, dated 16 April 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The Council does not object to the proposed replacement windows or the principle of the roof extension, and I agree with their reasoning and conclusion on this matter. The main issue is therefore the effect of raising the ridge height of the roof by 250 mm on the character and appearance of the conservation area and host house.

The appeal site is on the end of a long terrace of 3-storey properties, which displays a uniform pattern of windows and decorative stonework detailing. The roofscape is complex, with elaborately shaped dormer roofs and long, conspicuous chimney sets between every other house. The roof of each house is separated by a perpendicular parapet, finished with a decorative finial.

The terrace is part of the Fulham Park Gardens Conservation Area (CA). This is a large area and encompasses many of the surrounding streets. The ‘character profile addendum’ does not specifically refer to the host terrace, but I observed that the age, structure, character and finish of the terraced houses clearly contributes to the heritage interest of the area.

I also observed that the roofscape along the terrace was not entirely uniform. The height and width of the dormer roofs vary, the chimney pots that dominate the skyline are of different heights and not all of the finials remain. The terraces to either side and opposite are all of different style and structure. Although overall uniformity within the terraces is typical, there is therefore a high degree of variability on the streetscape. Given this context, I do not consider that the small rise in roof height would be easily noticeable.

I understand from the submissions that several of the houses, including No 20, have had their ridges raised to a similar degree. This was not easily visible from the public domain, in part because of the height of the houses and narrowness of the view from the road. The increase is small in height and the difference absorbed by the dominating parapets, dormer roofs and chimney stacks. I am satisfied that the same protective factors would apply to the current appeal.

The host house is on the end of the terrace, but is closely flanked by the next one, which has a significantly higher roofline. This would largely hide views of the slightly raised roofline from wider views along the street and [address].

I conclude that raising the ridgeline by 250 mm would not be easily seen from the public domain, nor would it disrupt the overall uniformity of the terrace. The critical 3-storey form, arrangement of windows and distinctive decorative stonework on the façade would remain and the proposal would not distract from these. In addition, there is a high degree of variability along the streetscape, which would further absorb a minor change. The proposed development would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA.

For the same reasons, I do not find that the increase in ridge height of the roof would noticeably alter the proportions of the house or be out of keeping with the architectural character of the property.

The proposal is therefore consistent with Policies DC1, DC4, DC8 and HO11 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (February 2018), [name] CAG3 of the SPD1, and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), which together are protective of the character and appearance of the urban environment and the CA.

The significance of the CA would be preserved. In coming to this conclusion, I have had regard to my duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The Council has recommended 7 conditions. I have imposed most of these, with slight amendments to the wording in the interests of precision and clarity, and to comply with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the statutory time limit, I have imposed a condition to secure accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. 1 Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document (February 2018)

I have imposed 2 conditions to control materials and final structure for the purpose of protecting the character and appearance of the host house and CA. This combines 5 of the Council’s recommended conditions.

I have also combined 2 of the Council’s recommended conditions to control the appearance of the new and replacement windows. I do not consider it necessary for the details to be agreed prior to commencement and have therefore removed this requirement.

I have not found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host house or conservation area. It would not conflict with the local development plan when read as a whole and there are no other material considerations that indicate a determination other than in accordance with the development plan. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: • Site location plan (1:1250) (produced 14 September 2020) • Existing plans (1:50@A1 1:100@A3) (00)00 (dated 6 [name] 2020) • Existing plans (1:50@A1 1:100@A3) (00)01 (dated 12 November 2020) • Existing sections and elevations (1:50@A1 1:100@A3) (01)00 (dated 6 August 2020) • Proposed plans (1:50@A1 1:100@A3) (00)10 (dated 16 April 2021) • Proposed plans (1:50@A1 1:100@A3) (00)11 (dated 16 April 2021) • Proposed sections and elevations (1:50@A1 1:100@A3) (01)10 (dated 16 April 2021)

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, including the roof, shall match those used in the existing elevation to which the alterations relate.

The party walls of the roof extension hereby permitted shall be constructed from brick to match the existing facing brickwork in terms of colour, texture, bonding and pointing, shall follow the profile of the extensions and shall not project more than 250 millimetres above or beyond the external faces of the roof structure.

No windows shall be installed or replaced until the submission of details to the Local Planning Authority, and receipt of its approval in writing, of all window frame profiles, glazing bars, spacer bars, materials and finishes, and locations of frames within openings in elevations and sections (at a scale 1:10). The windows shall be of timber framed sash design and shall match the existing windows in terms of colour, profile, sub-division and opening style, and shall be installed in the same external plane as the existing windows. The windows shall be maintained in this form thereafter.