Appeal 6002908

The appeal is dismissed.

Elements of the development have already been built, however based on what I saw on site what has been built does not necessarily match the scheme before me and as such I have determined the appeal based on the plans submitted with this appeal.

The appeal property is within the Crabtree Conservation Area and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The appeal property is located close to the [name] listed Grandstand and Turnstiles to [name] and Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which is possesses.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • The effect of the development on flood risk; and • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area including the Crabtree Conservation Area (CA) as well as the setting of the [name] listed Grandstand and Turnstiles to [name].

The appeal property is located within the Environment Agency’s (EA) modelled tidal breach flood extent. The EA identify that if the tidal defences along the Thames were breached that the site would be at risk of flooding. The proposal was supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA). However, as noted in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) one of the objectives of a site-specific FRA is to establish whether a proposed development is likely to be affected by current or future flooding from any source. The submitted FRA does not consider the residual flood risk in the event of a tidal breach and thus has not established that the proposed development would not be likely to be affected by current or future flooding from any source. The FRA also fails to demonstrate whether sleeping accommodation within the basement would be located above the modelled tidal breach flood level or be protected by permanent flood resistance measures at or above that level. Whilst mitigation measures are recommended in the FRA, given that it has not considered the potential impact from a tidal breach, it is not evident that the measures would be safe in that event.

While it is acknowledged that the appeal scheme does not propose a self-contained basement flat, Policy DC11 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (LP) expect new basements be designed to minimise the risk of flooding to the property and nearby properties from all sources of flooding and for the reasons given above, this is a matter that has not been addressed. This is not specific to new self-contained basement flats but basements generally, including extensions to them.

Therefore, the FRA does not demonstrate that the development would be considered safe for its lifetime. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies CC3 and DC11 of the LP insofar as it requires development proposals in flood risk areas to be supported by robust, site-specific FRA’s that consider tidal flood risk and demonstrate how flood risk will be reduced and managed over the lifetime of the development and to ensure new basements are designed to minimise the risk of flooding to the property and nearby properties from all sources of flooding.

The appeal property occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of [address] and [address]. It is a two-storey Victorian terraced dwelling. The surrounding CA is characterised by buildings of broadly consistent scale and form, predominantly Victorian and Edwardian in style. Opposite the appeal property lies [address], a large football stadium which includes the [name] listed Grandstand and Turnstiles to [name].

The area is generally arranged in a rectilinear street pattern, with streets intersecting at right angles. Owing to its corner location, the flank elevation of the appeal property is highly visible from [address]. Buildings within the CA are typically constructed in red or London stock brick, with many front elevations rendered in a variety of colours. Two-storey rear outriggers are common, and there are numerous examples of rear dormer additions. Properties frequently feature two-storey bay windows, sash or casement windows, and front hipped dormer windows within tiled or slate roofs. While gabled roofs are common in the immediate vicinity, hipped roofs are prevalent elsewhere within the CA, and substantial brick chimneys form a common feature.

Decorative arched entrances are typical, often accompanied by tiled front paths and recessed porches. Boundary treatments commonly include brick walls, railings, timber palings, or a combination of these elements, contributing to the established rhythm and coherence of the street. The streets are also generally tree lined.

The consistent design, scale, layout, and use of materials across the CA make a positive contribution to its character and appearance. While there is some variation in detailing, the repeated use of features such as bay windows, arched entrances, boundary treatments, and similar materials contributes towards the significance of the CA. Notwithstanding the changes already carried out, the appeal property retains several key features, including the two storey front bay window, arched entrance, and brick boundary wall, which make a positive contribution to the CA. As such, the building preserve its character and appearance.

The listed building forms part of a substantial stadium structure distinguished by its ornate and highly detailed brickwork, from which its architectural significance is primarily derived. The setting of the listed building includes the [name], located on the opposite side of the stadium to the appeal property and the surrounding CA. The consistent design, scale, and layout of the residential buildings within this setting, including the appeal property, contribute positively to the setting of the listed building and thereby to its significance.

The appeal property has an extensive planning history, with multiple permissions granted for various extensions over the last couple of years. Given that these permissions are generally still extant there is a realistic prospect that they could take place. The submitted plans demonstrate that a significant proportion of the proposed development has already received consent, and site observations indicate that elements of this development have been implemented. Importantly, the approved fallback position establishes that a substantial quantum of built form on the site, including extensions to the side and rear, has already been assessed as acceptable in principle. While the current scheme introduces variations, these must be considered in light of the extant permissions, which remain a material fallback when assessing visual impact, scale, and massing.

The two-storey side extension as proposed with accommodation in the roof would represent a modestly sized addition. The ridge would be set below that of the existing house, the extension would be less than half the width of the host dwelling, and it would extend only to the depth of the main building. Constructed of matching materials, this element would read as a clearly subordinate addition. Furthermore, a similar form of development has already been approved on the site, reinforcing that a side extension of this nature can be accommodated without harm. When seen against the existing flank wall of the host building, the extension would not project beyond its established envelope and would therefore not materially increase the perceived bulk when viewed from [address].

The rear mansard roof as proposed would extend a limited distance over the rear outrigger before spanning the full width of the rear roof slope, enclosed by brick parapet walls. Two-storey rear outriggers are a common characteristic within the CA, and numerous alterations to these elements are evident throughout the area. While the Council has raised concern regarding the verticality of certain roof elements, it is important to note that the approved fallback scheme already established the principle of a substantial roof extension in this location. The current proposal, although differing in detailed profile, occupies a broadly comparable envelope and remains visually contained to the rear. Given its modest projection, rearward position, and limited public visibility, it would not result in a materially greater sense of bulk or dominance than the approved scheme.

The proposal includes a deep single-storey rear and side extension extending along the boundary with [address]. It is acknowledged that this element replaces an earlier approved scheme that incorporated a recess to provide articulation. However, the current design must be read in the context of both the established urban character and the fallback position. While the extension would result in a more continuous built edge, the height remains modest in absolute terms and comparable to, albeit slightly above, that previously approved. The built form would still sit below the height of the flank wall of the host dwelling and the two-storey side extension, ensuring a clear hierarchy of elements.

Along this stretch of [address], the character is strongly influenced by continuous boundary walls and substantial built edges, including the prominent massing of [address] opposite. In this context, the perception of enclosure is already a defining characteristic of the street. The proposed development would reinforce this established condition rather than introduce an incongruous or harmful form. Whilst the increase in height relative to the approved scheme is noted, this difference is limited and would not give rise to a materially greater sense of enclosure such that it would appear oppressive in the wider streetscape. The absence of a recess does not result in unacceptable dominance when the proposal is considered alongside the fallback scheme and the strong urban grain of the area.

Rooflights are proposed on the front roof slope of the host dwelling and the side extension. Such features are not uncommon within the CA and, as they would be set flush within the roof plane, would not significantly alter the roof form. Their spacing and number would maintain a solid-to-void ratio that would ensure the roofscape would not appear cluttered.

The appeal property formerly included a brick-built chimney, consistent with those found on neighbouring properties within the CA. While the removal of this feature is acknowledged to result in some limited erosion of architectural consistency, the significance of this change must be considered in context. Chimneys are one of a number of repeating features within the CA, and their contribution to significance is derived collectively rather than individually. In this instance, the loss of the chimney is confined to a single end terrace property and does not disrupt the wider rhythm of the terrace to a degree that would result in meaningful harm. Moreover, the building retains a number of key features, including its bay window, arched entrance, and overall form, which would retain the areas consistent character. When weighed against the scheme as a whole, the limited and localised impact of the chimney removal does not undermine the ability of the development to preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

When assessed cumulatively, the various elements of the scheme, including the side extension, rear extensions, and roof alterations, remain within a scale and form that has largely already been accepted through previous permissions. The development does not extend significantly beyond the parameters of the approved schemes but instead represents a consolidation and modest intensification of that fallback position. The built form is distributed across the site rather than concentrated in a single dominant mass, and each element retains a degree of subservience to the host building. As such, the proposal does not result in overdevelopment or an unacceptable cumulative impact and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

The development would ensure that the appeal property would remain broadly consistent in character and appearance with neighbouring properties within the CA. As a result, the proposal would not harm the setting of the listed building and would preserve the contribution that this setting makes to its significance.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, including the fallback position, the modest nature of deviations from approved schemes, and the absence of any materially harmful increase in massing or enclosure, the development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. It would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed building. Accordingly, the proposal would accord with Policies DC1, DC4 and DC8 of the LP, which require development to be compatible with the scale and character of existing development and to conserve the significance of heritage assets.

In respect of the first main issue, I have found conflicts with relevant development plan policies. There are various other development plan policies with which the proposal would comply, including the character and appearance of the area and the impact on heritage assets. However, the objectives of the development plan must be read as a whole and the conflicts I have identified result in a conflict with the development plan when it is considered as a whole and this weighs against the scheme.

Planning permission was granted in 20231 (the 2023 approval), which included the excavation of a basement broadly similar to that now proposed. However, based on the information before me, that scheme would have retained the appeal property as two separate flats, whereas the current proposal seeks to de-convert the property into a single dwelling. I have limited information regarding the 2023 approval, but, as noted above, there is evidence from the EA concerning the modelled tidal breach flood extent. On the basis of the Council’s evidence, it appears that this information was not available to it at the time the 2023 approval was granted. Consequently, there appears to have been a material change in circumstances between the granting of the 2023 approval and the determination of the application subject to this appeal.

Based on the information before me, the flood mitigation measures proposed for both schemes appear to be similar, comprising, among other things, an escape ladder and rear stairs. Although the 2023 approval would have retained the property as two separate flats, both schemes would result in the provision of a bedroom within the basement. Even if there had been no change in circumstances, from a flood risk perspective, the level of risk to occupiers in the 1 Application Reference: 2023/01589/FUL event of a tidal breach would be comparable. In both cases, the proposed mitigation does not take account of the potential impacts of such a breach.

Given that permission was granted in December 2023 and is subject to a standard three-year commencement condition, it remains capable of implementation. There is therefore a greater than theoretical possibility of the fallback scheme being carried out. However, in terms of flood risk, occupiers of both schemes would be exposed to similar risks in the event of a tidal breach, and in neither case has it been demonstrated whether sleeping accommodation within the basement would be located above the modelled tidal breach flood level, or be protected by permanent flood resistance measures at or above that level. The two schemes are therefore comparable in their level of harm in this regard. Consequently, the appeal scheme does not represent a betterment in flood risk terms over the 2023 approval. Similarly, given that both schemes have been determined to preserve the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the nearby listed building, the appeal scheme is not necessarily an improvement over the fallback position in this regard either. Therefore, the fallback scheme does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The scheme would provide a larger home for the appellant and their family and would generate economic benefits during and after construction and it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as well as the setting of the listed building. However, in light of the limited scale of the proposal even when considered cumulatively the benefits of the development do not outweigh the identified harm in this case. I therefore conclude that the scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it.

Concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding the mansard roof extension that has been installed on the front roof slope of the appeal property. However, the appeal before me does not include this element and thus I have not taken it into account.

Whilst it would appear that development may have taken place for which planning permission was not granted, I am only concerned with the merits of this scheme.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.