Appeal 3304705

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a rear roof extension, involving an increase in the ridge height; erection of a rear extension at second floor level atop the existing and extended back addition; erection of a rear extension at first floor level, to the side of the existing back addition; installation of a rooflight to the front roofslope; and installation of sliding doors to the rear elevation at ground floor level at [site address] in accordance with the application ref 2022/01320/VAR, dated 6 May 2022, without compliance with condition 2 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 2022/00059/FUL, dated 18th January 2022 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from 6th April 2022, the date of the decision for planning permission Ref 2022/00059/FUL.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: PR01, PR02, PR03, PR04, PR05 [name]; PR06 [name]; PR07 [name]; PR08 [name], PR09 [name].

The development hereby approved shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the materials details (including colour and finish) specified below: - Walls: London stock brick to match the existing building in terms of brick and mortar colour and bond pattern. - Face of roof extension: Natural or artificial slates tiles which shall match the colour, shape and size of the existing roof. - Windows: Painted softwood windows to match colour, style, detail and finish to match the existing fenestration. -[name]; Painted steel slim frame. The development shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details. Any works of making good to existing elevations shall be carried out in materials to match the elevation to which the works relate.

No part of any roof of the first floor extension hereby approved, or the roof of the existing back addition, shall be used as a roof terrace or other form of open amenity space. No alterations shall be carried out; nor planters or other chattels placed on the roof. No railings or other means of enclosure shall be erected on the roof, and no alterations shall be carried out to the property to form access onto the roof.

No water tanks, water tank enclosures or other structures shall be erected upon the roofs of the extensions hereby permitted.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a terraced house located on a bend in the road. Adjoining properties either side of it have ground and first floor extensions that project beyond its rear building line. Views from the rear of the house are limited to a few properties to the rear and side. A nursery in a converted church and adjoining house on [address] back on to the site which can be seen from them. Both buildings have rear extensions. Mature trees obscure views of the rear of other houses along [address]. Except for the appeal site’s immediate neighbours, there are no views between it and the rear of houses further along [address] because the road angles away from the appeal site. Furthermore, the appeal site and neighbouring properties have shallow gardens which restrict views of neighbours’ roofs and add to the sense of the site being relatively enclosed.

The appellant has provided images that show many houses nearby have been extended. Most roof extensions do not appear to project beyond the original rear wall and eaves, and ground floor extensions generally project further than first floor extensions, providing a stepped profile. The approved proposal would extend onto the first floor roof and the first floor extension would extend over the full width of the ground floor. As such it would differ from most other development nearby in that it would only step back at roof level.

The proposed development would bring the approved roof extension further forward increasing its depth by 1.2m. Although the gap between the first floor roof parapet wall would be reduced from approximately 2.1 metres to 0.9 metres, a stepped appearance would be retained and as such the extension would remain subservient. Furthermore, due to the enclosed nature of the site the additional bulk would not be readily discernible from most views. Overall, I am satisfied that the amended scheme would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area and would not therefore conflict with Policies DC1 and DC4 of the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018) which require extensions to be of a high standard of design compatible with the character and scale of the existing and surrounding buildings.

I have amended the standard time condition which limits the lifespan of the planning permission to take account of the date of the original consent and have specified the approved plans to provide certainty. Other conditions attached to the original planning permission regarding materials, and preventing structures being constructed on the roof and its use as a terrace, are necessary to ensure a satisfactory finished appearance and protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.