Construction of a loft conversion using a rear mansard roof extension with raised ridge, plus three roof lights to the front slope, to provide additional residential accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 August 2017 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/A5840/D/17/3177549 18 Ryedale, East Dulwich, London SE22 0QW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Olivia Wallace against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Southwark.  The application, Ref. 17/AP/0716, dated 23 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 April 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of a loft conversion using a rear mansard roof extension with raised ridge, plus three roof lights to the front slope, to provide additional residential accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a loft conversion using a rear mansard roof extension with raised ridge, plus three roof lights to the front slope, to provide additional residential accommodation at 18 Ryedale, East Dulwich, London SE22 in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 17/AP/0716, dated 23 February 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 2016/440/01-09 inclusive; 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mrs Olivia Wallace against the Council of the London Borough of Southwark. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing house and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/A5840/D/17/3177549 2 Reasons 4. I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling at No. 18 marks a change in the street scene on the north western side of Ryedale between the 20th century terrace of Nos. 6-14 (for no discernible reason it is No. 14 that adjoins No. 18) and the Victorian or Edwardian terrace of Nos. 18-28 (from No. 30 onwards there is a further change to higher roof ridges and steeper pitches). 5. In views along this side of Ryedale there is a marked difference in appearance between Nos. 6-14 on the one hand and Nos. 18-28 on the other. Quite apart from the significant increase in roof height between No. 14 and No. 18, each of the terraces has considerable uniformity of appearance and a high degree of symmetry between its respective dwellings. However, it is the terrace of Nos. 18-28 that in my view makes the more positive contribution to the street scene, with its more traditional design of bay windows, recessed porches and architectural detailing that draws together Nos. 18 & 20, 22 & 24 and 26 & 28 as matching pairs within the terrace. 6. Given these factors, I can understand the Council’s concern that the change to a ridge line that is currently flush with No. 20 would be visually disruptive, as at present the differences between ridge line heights within the terrace is only there to accommodate the change in ground levels caused by the gradient along the road. As the officer’s report explains, ‘the different ridge lines maintain a uniform appearance along the road due to the even pairing of properties before a change in heights’. 7. That said, the increase in height in this case would be a modest 40cm, which with the shallow roof pitches would not be particularly easy to see from street level, all the more so because the eye would be drawn much more to the aforementioned significant change in height between Nos. 14 and 18; the contrasting designs of those terraces, and the strong elements of symmetry and rhythm of the front elevations of the terrace of No. 18-28. Furthermore, the inevitable absence of any perspective in the two dimensional front view of the higher roof on Drawing No. 2016/440/07 makes the visual impact in respect of the both relationship with No. 20 and the two chimney stacks appear greater than would be perceived by any passer by, especially taking into account the parapet wall that restricts the angled view. 8. The Council argues that the proposal will significantly alter the appearance of the existing dwelling and unacceptably effect on the visual amenity and character of the surrounding area. However given the variety within the existing Ryedale street scene I consider this is an unduly pessimistic assessment of the appeal scheme, whilst I must also take into account the improved and enlarged accommodation being a positive factor in the overall sustainability of the proposal. 9. As I have explained in paragraph 6 above, I have some sympathy with the Council’s view. However, in a case where the merits and drawbacks of the proposal are finely balanced, I consider the fact that Ryedale does not form part of a conservation area to be an important consideration. Had this been the case, I may well have taken a different view. 10. Overall and on balance, I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing house and the Appeal Decision APP/A5840/D/17/3177549 3 surrounding area in harmful conflict with Policies 3.12 & 3.13 of the Southwark Plan 2007, the Council’s Residential Design Standards SPD 2011 (updated in 2015) and Section 7; ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 11. I shall therefore allow the appeal and in so doing impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the external materials to match those of the dwelling (other than as indicated on the submitted plans) will maintain visual amenity. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR