Rear roof extension including raising ridge height

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by N A Holdsworth MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/17/3190275 83 Priory Grove, London, SW8 2PD  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 Jeremy Hinton against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth.  The application Ref 17/04362/FUL, dated 5 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 November 2017  The development proposed is rear roof extension including raising ridge height. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. Whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Larkhall Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The site is located within the Larkhall Conservation Area. Section 72 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of such areas. 4. In this case the host property forms part of a well preserved terrace of 19th Century buildings, which sits within a tightly knit urban fabric, from which the special character of the Conservation Area is derived. Whilst I note that there has been some degree of alteration at roof level in the surrounding area, the existing roof on the host property has the appearance of a generally intact and unaltered 19th Century pitched roof. 5. There are two elements of the proposal: the enlargement and partial reconstruction of the roof, and the dormer windows which would be inserted in to the enlarged roof. Enlargement of roof 6. The roof shares a raised boundary wall with its neighbour at No.85, hereafter described as the parapet wall. The parapet wall follows the shape of the roof, with a chimney stack extending above the apex of the ridge of the roof. Under the proposals the ridge line would be raised in height, and moved back towards the rear of the property. However, the submitted plans show that the existing Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/17/3190275 2 chimney stack and parapet wall shared with No.85 would be retained in the same position. In consequence, the extended roof would project to a greater height, and descend at a different angle, to the parapet wall. 7. This would lead to an unresolved and incongruous relationship at roof level which would seriously undermine the integrity of this property, and the terrace in which it sits, at roof level. I therefore agree with the Council that the symmetry between the host property and No.85 would be diminished to an unacceptable degree, under these proposals. The raising of the ridge line and reconstruction of the bulk of the roof, in the manner proposed, would therefore result in harm to both the character and the appearance of the host property, and the setting of No.85. This would be likely to be visible from the street, in addition to private views from the area to the rear of the property. 8. The Council maintain that the property has always been part of a pair with No.85, as reflected in the description of the property in the Larkhall Conservation Area Statement (March 2012), which I have had regard to in this decision. However, the appellant argues that the property was historically part of a longer terrace, including No’s 79 and 81, which have been extended over time. 9. I agree that there are significant visual similarities between 79, 81, 83 and 85, particularly evident in the general design and appearance of its front façade. It follows that any reconstruction or extension to the roof of No.83 must complement the whole row of properties, including No.85. Under the proposals, for the reasons set out above, that would not be the case. The harm that arises could not be overcome by the use of sympathetic materials, such as natural slate, in the construction of the extended roof. Dormer windows 10. The enlarged roof would also contain three dormer windows with a linking section. I note that link dormer windows are identified in the Council’s Building Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (September 2015) (“Building Alterations SPD”) as a potentially appropriate design solution in Conservation Areas. I also appreciate that the proposal has been designed in such a way that the dormer windows would align with the fenestration below. 11. However a long link section is proposed, encompassing a large horizontal section of the extended pitched roof. In this regard, the proposal clearly differs from the example set out in the Building Alterations SPD, which includes two dormer windows with a single, relatively short linking section. Because of its width, the link section would not appear as an incidental or hidden part of the dormer windows, but a significant alteration to the plane of the roof in its own right. It would therefore erode the integrity of the pitched roof of the host property, exacerbating the harm that arises through the raising of the roof structure as a whole. 12. The appellant provides a proportionality analysis that demonstrates that, amongst other things, the total amount of pitched roof that would be altered to accommodate the dormers would be similar to the example drawing provided within the Building Alterations SPD. However, this does not justify the proposed development, given the harm that arises through the large and visually prominent linking section. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/17/3190275 3 13. Dormer windows and roof extensions of various styles are evident on properties in the immediate surrounding area, including No’s 20 and 96 Larkhall Lane, alongside 63, 73 and 75 Priory Grove. Some of these additions are visible from the public realm. However, none of these alterations are directly comparable to the appeal proposal due to its long link section. Whilst linked dormers were approved at No.20 Larkhall Lane1, this did not involve such a prominent link section, as would be the case here. 14. Reference is made to other instances where the Council have approved longer link sections in other parts of the Borough. However, having considered the specific context of this site I share the Council’s view that proposal would comprise an inappropriate design solution within this part of the Conservation Area. Overall, I consider that the diminution of the pitched roof form of the building that arises through the two elements of the development would result in harm to the character and the appearance of the Larkhall Conservation Area. Planning Balance and Conclusion 15. I consider that the harm to the significance of the Larkhall Conservation Area would be less than substantial. Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals. 16. The appellant contends that the development would provide improved and extended living accommodation. The White Paper Fixing our broken housing market (February 2017) and the subsequent document Planning for the right homes in the right places (September 2017) sets out support for the more effective use of urban land, and include proposals to support the upward extension of buildings through using the ‘airspace’ above them. The proposed development is consistent with this emerging policy direction. As a greater amount of residential floorspace is created, the proposal would clearly make more efficient use of the site. 17. Furthermore, by enabling the extension of the existing property to provide larger family sized accommodation, the proposal would help avoid a need for the appellant to move house. This could potentially help alleviate the pressure on the housing stock within the Borough, helping the Council achieve and potentially exceed its housing targets. These points weigh in favour of the development, and could be considered public benefits of the development. However, the total effect on housing supply through an extension to a single dwelling would be small. In consequence, I attach limited weight to this benefit. 18. It is also argued that the proposal would comply with building regulations and in consequence the energy efficiency of the existing property would be increased. However, limited technical evidence is provided to quantify these benefits. I therefore attach limited weight to the environmental benefits of the proposal. 19. For the reasons set out elsewhere in this decision I do not agree that the appearance of the property and unity of the group in which it is located would be enhanced by the raising of the roof ridge. As such, the works would not amount to a public benefit, in this regard. The fact that the front elevation of 1 16/05672/FUL Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/17/3190275 4 the property would remain largely unaltered is a neutral factor in the overall planning balance. 20. Overall, the public benefits of the development are not, even cumulatively, sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the Larkhall Conservation Area. I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Larkhall Conservation Area. It conflicts with policy Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (Adopted September 2015) (“Local Plan”) which requires that, amongst other things, development proposals should respect and reinforce the established positive characteristics of Conservation Areas, in terms of height, siting and design. It also conflicts with policies Q5 and Q11 of the same plan, together with the relevant parts of the Building Alterations SPD, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that proposals to alter and extend buildings have a design which positively responds to the original architecture, roof form and detailing of the host building. The proposal also conflicts with the relevant parts of the Framework which share similar objectives. 21. I have taken into account in my reasoning above the appellant’s argument that the proposed development would assist in providing additional housing through the adaptation of an existing property, even though a new residential unit would not be created. However, I have found that the poor visual relationship between the extended roof and that of No.85, together with the large link section of roof within the dormer windows would lead to harm to the character and the appearance of the Larkhall Conservation Area. The proposal does not accord with the development plan, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework, does not apply. Whilst the appellant expresses concern about how the Council handled the planning application that led to this appeal, my decision must be made on the planning merits of the case. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Neil Holdsworth INSPECTOR