Appeal 6002099

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the effect on the significance of the Central Fulham Conservation Area, as a designated heritage asset.

The appeal site is [site address] , an end-of-terrace dwelling within a short terrace of three properties. It is located in a residential area characterised by late Victorian terraced housing and lies within the Central Fulham Conservation Area (CA). The property occupies a corner position, with its flank elevation facing [address] to the south. The existing roof of No 17 is hipped. Due to its corner location, this roof form is highly prominent within the streetscene, contrary to the appellant’s assertion that its position minimises public views. Whilst the streetscene is also affected ‘by the façades and boundaries’ of the terraced dwellings, as set out by the appellant, the roof profiles of the terraces also positively contribute towards the character and appearance of the area.

At the opposite end of the short terrace, [address] has a gabled side elevation with a mansard roof to the rear. On the opposite side of [address], [address] forms the end of a similar short terrace of three dwellings, with a hipped roof matching that of No 17. The other end of that opposing terrace, [address], also features a gabled side elevation and mansard roof. Therefore, whilst the terrace may have been altered over time, as the appellant puts to me, the existing roof form arrangement creates a mirrored composition between the two terraces, which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. It also provides a symmetrical entrance to the western end of [address].

In addition, I observed hipped roofs at [address] and Nos 75 and [address], which occupy similar corner positions nearby. Consequently, while gable-ended properties and mansard roofs introduce some variety to the built form, hipped roofs at the end of terraces on corner plots are a fairly regular and characteristic feature of the area.

The Officers Report explains that the [name] was designated in 1989. It is predominantly residential and characterised by mid-to-late 19th century terraced houses, largely constructed in gault brick. The CA exhibits some detached houses and villas, with variations in decorative detailing such as ornate balustrades, stucco, red brick, and moulded brickwork. This part of the CA, between [address] and [address], contains well-preserved, modestly scaled Victorian houses with fine detailing. From my site visit, I found this description to be generally accurate. For the purposes of this appeal, the significance of the CA derives from its historic architectural interest and coherent street layout. In this context, I consider that the existing built form of No [address] within which it stands, makes a positive contribution to the CA’s significance, reinforcing some of the characteristics that underpin its special interest.

The proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, due to its position on a prominent side roof slope of a corner plot, would appear as an incongruous and visually intrusive addition to No 17. The height, bulk and massing of the proposal would result in a distinctive and harmful change to the outline of the hipped roof dwelling. It would result in a large flank wall, disrupting the balanced street scene and would appear as out of keeping with the local built context, to the detriment to the architectural character and appearance of the area.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion that the proposal would mirror the gable end at No. 15 and create a coherent termination to the terrace, I find that it would instead disrupt the established rhythm. In particular it would undermine the symmetry of the short terrace alongside the opposing terrace of Nos 18-20. The proposed development would not successfully integrate with the prevailing character of the immediate context. Its overall form would appear incongruous when compared to the established pattern of hipped roofs on nearby corner plots.

I acknowledge that the character of the CA has evolved since its designation, with examples of gable-ended roofs and extended roof forms now present. Nevertheless, while some hipped roofs have been altered, they remain evident in this location, particularly on corner plots, and continue to form an important component of the area’s built form and roofscape. In particular, it is not considered that any existing precedents have redefined roofscape character, as claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, although the roofscape has changed over time, hipped roofs have not been erased and still contribute to its prevailing character.

The appellant claims that the roof profiles are only visible from oblique views. However, owing to No 17’s corner position, its roof form is highly prominent within the streetscene. Public vantage points exist from both Bloom Park Road and [address], from which the proposal would be seen as an unsympathetic addition to the architectural character of the surrounding built context.

The design and scale of the proposal are noted. The overall ridge height remains unchanged, and the rear mansard has been designed to sit below and behind the parapet line to appear subordinate. The mansard would also incorporate a 70 degree pitch in accordance with the Council’s guidance and there would be no loss of historic fabric. Nevertheless, these design principles would not overcome the unsuitable nature of the hip to gable roof extension as identified above.

As a consequence of the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area, there would also be harm to the significance of the CA. That harm would be localised and, in my judgment, falls at the lower end of the spectrum of ‘less than substantial’ harm. Nevertheless, I am required to give considerable importance and weight to that harm in accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) also requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. As required by paragraph 215 of the Framework, this harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would assist in maintaining the long-term viability of a family dwelling, increasing the density of the site, making effective use of land and it could be regarded as a form of sustainable heritage management. There would also be some economic benefits arising from the purchase of materials and construction activity, including the creation of employment for local builders and tradespeople. The proposal may also result in a rise in the Council Tax payable. However, when taken together, these public benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the significance of the heritage asset.

I recognise the heritage enhancements proposed by the appellant, including the removal of non-original external paint and the replacement of windows with high-quality timber sash units replicating original Victorian profiles. While these measures are welcomed, they could be undertaken independently of the appeal scheme. Accordingly, they do not represent benefits that are necessarily contingent upon the proposed development.

The appellant highlights that the Act requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA, rather than preventing all change. However, based on my findings above, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. It would therefore conflict with the statutory duty under the Act.

I note that the Council has not raised any objection to the inclusion of the three rooflights in the front roof slope. I also acknowledge that the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, nor would it have adverse effects on ecology, parking provision, or highway safety. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the CA.

Therefore, in view of the above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance, and thereby the significance, of the [name] as a designated heritage asset. The proposal would conflict with Policies DC1, DC4, and DC8 of the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (adopted 2018) and [name] CAG3 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2018). Collectively, these policies and guidance aim to ensure that all development contributes to a high-quality urban environment that respects and enhances its townscape context and heritage assets. A high standard of design is required for alterations and extensions, which should be sympathetic to the architectural character of the surrounding built context. The significance of designated heritage assets must be conserved or enhanced, with particular regard to matters such as scale, height, massing, alignment, materials, and use. Roof forms are specifically identified as an important characteristic within this context.

The appellant has referred to other properties within the surrounding area that have received planning permission for hip-to-gable alterations, including 1 and [address], and 62 and [address]. While the permission at No 1 has not been implemented, I observed that these other schemes were subject to slightly different site contexts and circumstances compared with the appeal proposal. Although they are within the same CA, relate to similar late-Victorian terrace architecture, and were located on end-of-terrace or corner plots, they did not form part of a short terrace that visually mirrors another short terrace opposite in its specific roof form. This distinction undermines the appellant’s assertion that these are ‘near-identical extensions’ or that the Council acted inconsistently in its assessment of any alleged precedent.

In any event, the existence of similar hip-to-gable extensions elsewhere within the CA does not, in itself, justify development that I have found to be harmful. Each case must be determined on its own merits, and I have concluded that the appeal proposal would cause harm for the reasons set out above. Accordingly, the presence of other roof alterations in the vicinity does not alter my findings in respect of the scheme before me now.

The appellant has indicated that they ‘would accept relevant conditions to render the proposal acceptable’. However, based on my findings above, the harm I have identified could not be overcome by the imposition of conditions.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, worthy of sufficient weight, that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. The appeal is therefore dismissed.