Construction of a mansard roof at 121 Albyn Road, SE8 incorporating two dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 November 2017 By Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/D/17/3184217 121 Albyn Road, London, SE8 4EB  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 Ms Jill Duggan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham.  The application Ref DC/17/101728, dated 22 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 18 July 2017.  The development proposed is described as the construction of a mansard roof at 121 Albyn Road, SE8 incorporating two dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes. 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 building, the street scene and the Brookmill Conservation Area (BCA). Reasons 3. The BCA is characterised by uniformly designed terraces of typically modest sized two storey dwellings constructed in the mid to late C19th. The dwellings are sited behind small front courtyards that are enclosed by low brick walls and cast iron railings, which front onto linear streets. The trees within the highway, together with Brookmill Park visually soften and contribute to the residential character of the BCA, which is also influenced by the railway line which runs through it. 4. Albyn Road is consistent with and forms an integral part of the character and appearance of the BCA. The Appeal dwelling is located within a terrace of 12 uniformly designed two storey dwellings with basements. The terrace has butterfly roofs that are hidden from the street scene behind parapet walls, with plain stucco cornices. Other terraces have traditional pitched roofs, often with modest sized dormer windows that are partially hidden from the street scene behind parapet walls. These two roof forms are a particular feature of many of the terraces in the conservation area and they make a significant contribution to the sense of rhythm and uniformity within the BCA. 5. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LB&CA Act) requires that when assessing proposals for new development Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/17/3184217 2 within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. 6. Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to its conservation. Any harm requires clear and convincing justification, whilst opportunities for new development in conservation areas should be sought. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Policy 16 of the Lewisham Core Strategy (CS), policy 36 of the Lewisham Development Management Local Plan (Local Plan) and Policy 7.8 of the London Plan are consistent with this. 7. Regarding design the NPPF, Policy 15 of the CS, policy 30 of the Local Plan and policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan collectively seek to ensure that new development adds to the quality of the area. New development should be of the highest quality and should protect the historic environment. It should contribute to local distinctiveness, including roofscapes and should relate to the urban typology of the area. 8. Paragraph 6.7 of the Lewisham Residential Standards - Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that roof extensions should be sensitively designed to retain the architectural integrity of the building. Large roof extensions should be located on rear elevations to protect the front and side elevations from substantial alteration and should not exceed the ridge of the host dwelling. 9. The proposed flat roofed extension would span the whole of the roof of the dwelling and would replace the existing butterfly roof. The walls of the proposed extension would be set behind and angled away from the front parapet wall and the main rear wall of the host dwelling. It would project above the existing front parapet wall to a height just below the top of the chimney stack. The parapet walls between the host and the adjoining dwellings would be similarly increased in height. 10. Due to its height, mass and variance from the existing uniform roofline the proposed roof extension would be visually prominent and out of place within the street scene. It would materially detract from the modest character and appearance of the host dwelling and would look awkward and totally out of place within the terrace as a whole, disrupting its sense of rhythm and uniformity. To the rear the proposed extension would be visually bulky and unduly prominent. It would fail to respect the traditional butterfly roof form of the host dwelling and would interrupt the existing row of butterfly roofs. 11. Whilst it is noted that the proposed external materials and the alignment of the windows would match those of the host dwelling, this would not address the harm that would be caused by the overall size and form of the extension. The proposed extension would cause significant harm to the historic character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace and the BCA. 12. The Appellant has referred to a number of approved mansard roof extensions within Albyn Road and Lind Street. The character of the Albyn Road to the southeast of St. John’s Vale is more diverse and includes a significant number of roof additions. Within this context additional roof extensions are less likely Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/17/3184217 3 to upset the existing rhythm and appearance of the terraces. Conversely, the stretch of Albyn Road between St. Johns Vale and Strickland Street is well- preserved and thus particularly sensitive to changes to the roofscape, including individual mansard roof extensions. By example, some of the individually sited mansard extensions located on the north side of Albyn Road and in Lind Street serve to highlight how such extensions can be visually prominent and have a detrimental impact of the historic integrity of the terraces concerned and the street scene. Rather than set a precedent, the examples referred to highlight the need to assess each proposal on its individual merits and in light of the prevailing planning policies. 13. In this instance the harm that would result from the proposed roof extension would outweigh the benefits for the Appellant that would result from the additional accommodation. This is not a matter that could be dealt with by condition. Even acknowledging the benefits of having solar panels the public benefits resulting from the scheme would fail to outweigh the moderate harm that would be caused to the significance of the BCA. 14. I conclude that the proposed extension would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace and the street scene. It would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the BCA and the harm that would be caused to the significance of the BCA would not be outweighed by any public benefits. Accordingly, the scheme would conflict with policies 15 & 16 of the CS, policies 30, 31 & 36 of the Local Plan, policies 7.4, 7.6 & 7.8 of the London Plan, the SPD and the NPPF. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR