Retention of single storey rear extension and rear roof/dormer extension, alterations to front elevation and provision of velux windows to front roof slope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 February 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/18/3194758 43 Rommany Road, London SE27 9PY  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 M Maze Clark against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth.  The application Ref 17/05153/FUL, dated 23 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 December 2017.  The development is described as the retention of single storey rear extension and rear roof/dormer extension, alterations to front elevation and provision of velux windows to front roof slope. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to a rear roof/dormer extension and provision of velux windows to front roof slope. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension and alterations to front elevation at 43 Rommany Road, London SE27 9PY in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/05153/FUL, dated 23 October 2017. Procedural matters 3. The proposed development is largely complete. It appears to have been constructed broadly in accordance with the plans. 4. As retention is not an act of development under the above Planning Act, this term is omitted from the description of development given in my decision. Main issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a 2-storey mid-terrace house that lies within a mainly residential area wherein buildings vary in design, age, size, height and general appearance. At the front of the terraces along Rommany Road, the simple design and form of the buildings gives the street scene a broad consistency in appearance. There is greater variation in the built form at the rear of the terraces, with several examples of properties close to the site with significant additions and external alterations at high level. The appeal dwelling is not part Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3194758 2 of a conservation area nor is it located within an area of acknowledged special character or appearance. 7. At the back of the house, the roof level extension extends across almost the full width of the main roof slope up to a slightly raised ridge and along the rear outrigger with no appreciable set back from the walls of the dwelling below. It could not reasonably be described as a subordinate addition, which Policy Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (LP) states should generally be a key consideration. This element of the appeal scheme has significantly added to the scale and mass of the dwelling at a high level and has fundamentally altered its shape and appearance. To my mind, the roof level extension, due to its scale and mass, overwhelms the traditional style and built form of the main house. It is an overly dominant feature in the rear façade, even with a sizeable modern style ground floor extension in place. The roof level extension therefore fails to respond positively to the architectural integrity of the original building and its group, to which LP Policy Q11 refers. 8. As the roof level extension is at the rear of the existing dwelling, away from public view, it has no significant effect on the streetscape or to the front façade of the existing dwelling or the wider terrace. Part of the extension would, however, be evident from the rear gardens and windows of some nearby properties. While these vantage points do not form part of the public realm, they nonetheless encompass the characteristics of the local area as it is experienced and appreciated by others. From these locations, the roof level extension would draw the eye as an overly large and bulky addition even among the varied built form at roof level at the back of the wider terrace. 9. I note that the roof extensions on several properties close to No 43 were constructed either as permitted development (PD) or under the prior approval process. While these additions form part of the character of the area, their presence does not necessarily signal that such schemes have therefore respected the character and appearance of the host building or blended seamlessly into their particular context. These existing extensions do not justify an unsympathetic form of development, as sought. 10. The three roof lights occupy a prominent position on the front roof slope of No 43, which do not align with the vertical pattern of windows in the dwelling below. That the roof lights protrude above the plane of the roof accentuates their presence, which is evident from Rommany Road. Due to the number, position and design, the roof lights are conspicuous features on the dwelling that clutter the front roof slope. As such, these features detract from the visual character of the host building and the wider area, which includes a wide range of buildings including tower blocks. 11. While there are roof lights on other properties along Rommany Road, these generally serve to illustrate the harm that can be caused even by modest changes to the roof of a building. It may be that the roof lights would, on their own, qualify as PD and thus do not require planning permission. Nevertheless, permission is sought in this instance and I find the roof lights to be unwelcome additions to the host building and the wider area for the reasons given. 12. On the main issue, I conclude that the roof level extension and roof lights materially harm the character and appearance of the local area, in conflict with LP Policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Building Alterations & Extensions. These policies and guidance Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3194758 3 broadly aim to ensure that development positively responds to its context and does not adversely affect the building or the wider street scene. 13. The Council raises no objection to the single storey rear extension and to the alterations to the front elevation, including the reintroduction of the front bay. I, too, find these parts of the development acceptable in design, scale and appearance. As these components of the appeal scheme are clearly severable to the roof level extension and front roof lights, which are objectionable, I am able to issue a split decision that grants planning permission solely for them. Conditions 14. As the development is complete and the materials used are appropriate, the standard time limit condition and a requirement for matching materials, as suggested by the Council, are unnecessary. No other conditions are required. Conclusion 15. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed in part and allowed in part. Gary Deane INSPECTOR