Construction of a loft conversion using a rear mansard extension, plus new front slope with two roof lights, to provide additional residential accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 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/17/3177687 1 Ada Road, Camberwell, London SE5 7RW  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 Mr Alex Macro against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Southwark.  The application, Ref. 17/AP/0490, dated 8 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 April 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of a loft conversion using a rear mansard extension, plus new front slope with two roof lights, to provide additional residential accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part, and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is on the northern side of Ada Road and is the first of five houses in the approach from St Giles Road to the west. The terrace exhibits a considerable coherence and unity of design with an almost perfect symmetry in the front elevations that establishes a noticeable and attractive rhythm to this part of the road. The only exception to this is at its eastern end, where what appears to be part of No. 170 Elmington Road in the form of a garage with a room above it comprises a visually discordant element. 4. To the rear of the parapet the building, in common with the other houses in the terrace has a butterfly roof, and this would be lost as a result of the infill nature of the proposed mansard extension. In the roof extensions paragraphs of section 3.4 of the Council’s ‘2015 Technical Update to the Residential Design Standards’ SPD 2011 (‘the SPD’), it is explained that ‘Roof extensions will not be permitted in the following circumstances ……….. where there is an unbroken run of butterfly roofs’. 5. For the appellant it is argued that as the first property in the terrace, the appeal scheme for No. 1 would not break or interrupt this row. However, I am not convinced that this ‘technicality’ absolves the proposal from being reasonably and fairly subject to this guidance. Nor is there any evidence of the feasibility Appeal Decision APP/A5840/D/17/3177687 2 and likelihood of permitted development rights being taken up to square off this part of the roof up to its side ridges. I therefore conclude that the proposed mansard extension would harm the architectural integrity of the host dwelling and the terrace as a whole, leading to a significant loss in its character. 6. The effect on the street scene depends in large measure on the extent to which the extension, as the only addition to the terrace roof, would be seen from ground level. However, from my visit to the area I am in no doubt that the western flank of the mansard would be readily visible in the approach from St Giles Road. 7. The extent of the extension’s visibility from other vantage points is more difficult to assess, but I am minded to accept the appellant’s argument that directly in front of the house from the opposite pavement (View A on Drawing No. 2016/118/09) the front slope would not be seen. Conversely however, I agree with the Council’s assessment that in longer and angular views from that side of the road the extension would be clearly noticeable. Moreover, as the only roof extension on the terrace it would reasonably be perceived as harmfully incongruous and thereby detrimental to the character and appearance of Ada Road. 8. Together with the adverse effect on the architectural integrity of the dwelling and the terrace, this would be in harmful conflict with saved Policies 3.12 & 3.13 of The Southwark Plan 2007; Strategic Policy 12 of the Southwark Core Strategy 2011; Policy 7.6 of the London Plan 2016; the Council’s SPD, and Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 9. I have noted the appeal decision at No. 4 Sharsted Street but this does not affect the detailed considerations in this case that have led to my decision. I have also taken into account neighbour support for the scheme and that there would be an improvement in the standard of accommodation at the property. However none of these factors, nor any other matter raised for the appellant, in my view clearly outweighs my finding that unacceptable harm would be caused to the host building and its surroundings. 10. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR