Roof extension at 17 Bloom Park Road, Fulham, London SW6

What was proposed

The application proposed a rear roof extension, a hip-to-gable roof extension and three rooflights in the front roof slope.

“Description: Erection of a rear roof extension including the formation of a hip to gable roof extension; installation of 3 No rooflights in the front roofslope.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling on the corner of Bloom Park Road and Marville Road within the Central Fulham Conservation Area.

“This application relates to a two-storey, end-of-terrace dwelling located on the northwest corner of Bloom Park Road and Marville Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and consists of late Victorian terraced dwellings.”

“The site is located within the Central Fulham Conservation Area but is neither listed or a Building of Merit. The site is situated within the Environmental Agency's designated Flood Risk Zone 2.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the extension would be visually prominent, dominant and out of character, harming the conservation area and street scenes.

“(1) That the Committee resolve that the Director of Planning and Property be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reason(s) for refusal listed below;”

“1) The proposed development is considered unacceptable on visual amenity grounds. Specifically, the proposed hip-to-gable roof extension and rear roof extension, by reason of its siting, height, bulk and mass, would represent a visually prominent and incongruous development that is overly dominant, discordant, and out of character with the established form of roof level development along the host terrace.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

One objection was received, stating that the vertical roof extension would not fit neighbouring buildings or the conservation area and would cause loss of privacy.

“The application was publicised by site and press notices. Individual notification letters were also sent to 16 neighbouring properties. In Response, 1 objection letter was received which raised the following summary representations: -”

“- Vertical roof extension would not be in keeping with neighbouring buildings or surrounding conservation area - Loss of privacy…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Tom Scriven gave a presentation, and the applicant spoke in support of the application.

The committee vote

Members voted on both officer recommendations, with five votes for and two against each recommendation.

“The Committee sought clarification from the officers present and then voted on the officer recommendations for refusal as amended by the Addendum as follows:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused, and officers were authorised to make minor changes to the refusal reasons after consultation with legal services and the chair.

“That the Director of Planning and Property be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reason(s) for refusal listed in the report.”

“That the Director of Planning and Property, after consultation with the Assistant Director Legal Services and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee be authorised to make any minor changes to the proposed reasons for refusal, which may include the variation, addition or deletion of reasons, any such changes shall be within their discretion.”

Minutes