Appeal 3297518

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form. In my view this more clearly and concisely describes the development and I have used it for my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the host building and the character and appearance of the area, including the [address] Conservation Area.

Nos.18 and 20 are a pair of semi-detached properties to the south of [address]. The road comprises a mixture of residential properties and a school and lies within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). As such, I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The St. [address] Conservation Area Character Profile explains that the character of the area is derived mainly from the variety of 19th Century residential properties. [address], which is an extension to the CA, is more diverse with infill development, nonetheless the character profile specifically comments that the 1930 properties - Nos.16 to 32 (even) [address], respect the rhythms created elsewhere in the CA and are of an appropriate scale.

The proposed alterations to the roof profile would add significant bulk and change the appearance of the building. This would disrupt the consistent and unified form the pairs of semi-detached properties provide as a group within the street scene.

Some of the other semi-detached properties have rear dormer windows, however, these are set within the existing hipped roof, and thereby are of a more limited scale. In contrast, the proposed box dormers would extend over a significant proportion of the whole roof, which in my view would have a dominating effect, and would be visible from public vantage points along [address] and [address].

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of roof alterations within the locality, including a recent planning approval for a side dormer to No.15. Having regard to the property types, context, and the form of development I do not find that these are directly comparable to the appeal scheme, and moreover each proposal is to be considered on its own merits.

I acknowledge that the proposed materials would match the host building, and that an alternative scheme utilising a side dormer would be visible from the front. Be that as it may, the appellant also explains in their Design and [name] that an approved scheme1 for a side and rear dormer to No.18 would not provide sufficient headroom to accommodate an internal staircase. This alternative scheme is therefore unlikely to be implemented and therefore I have not given it weight as a genuine fallback.

While the joint approach to both halves of the building would provide symmetry, overall, I find that the scale and form of the development would have a harmful impact on the homogeneity of the group of properties and would fail to protect the rhythm within the street scene which is a defining character of the CA.

Having regard to Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (Local Plan) policy DC82 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the degree of harm that I have identified is less than substantial and should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed alterations would create additional floorspace which would be a direct benefit to the occupier(s) of the properties and there would be some associated economic benefits during the construction phase. Nonetheless as directed by the Framework (paragraph 199) great weight is to be given to the conservation of heritage assets and no public benefits have been identified which would outweigh this harm.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policies DC1, DC4 and DC8 and [name] CAG2 and CAG3 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2018) which seek development to be compatible with the scale and character of the setting, to be subservient to and integrate with the 1 Council reference 2013/03931/FUL 2 Policy DC8 refers to paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework, however the corresponding paragraphs of the revised National Planning Policy Framework July 2021 relating to the consideration of potential impacts are 201 and 202. existing building, and to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Having regard to the matters set out above, and with due regard to all other matters, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and that the appeal should be dismissed.