For alterations to the front roof slope by adding two roof lights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2018 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/18/3196697 46 Kirkstall Road, Streatham Hill, London, SW2 4HF  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 Ben & Mrs Camilla Ridgwell against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth.  The application Ref 17/05957/FUL, dated 8 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 February 2018.  The development proposed is for alterations to the front roof slope by adding two roof lights. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to the front roof slope by adding two roof lights at 46 Kirkstall Road, Streatham Hill, London, SW2 4HF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/05957/FUL, dated 8 December 2017 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan, 2017/133/01, 2017/133/02, 2017/133/03, 2017/133/04, 2017/133/05, 2017/133/06, 2017/133/07 and 2017/133/08. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the roof alterations hereby permitted shall match those of the host dwelling. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Ben & Mrs Camilla Ridgwell, against the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth. 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 Telford Park Conservation Area (TPCA). Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3196697 2 Reasons 4. Uniform rows of semi-detached and terraced family houses dating back to the early C20th and set behind modest sized front gardens, contribute to the character, appearance and significance of the TPCA. Whilst the individual pairs of houses were symmetrically designed, the detailing of the individual pairs varies considerably and includes features such as Dutch gables and turrets. 5. The Appeal dwelling comprises one of a pair of symmetrically designed semi- detached two storey houses with hipped roofs and prominent gable roofed two storey bays. Both of the dwellings have dormer extensions on their side roof slopes and the adjoining dwelling at 46 Kirkstall Road (No.46) also has roof lights on the front roof-slope. 6. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act) requires that when assessing proposals for new development within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. Policy Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 (Local Plan) reflects this. 7. 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. 8. Regarding design, together and amongst other things the NPPF and policy Q11 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that new development responds to local character and reflects the identity of local surroundings. Alterations and extensions should have a design which positively responds to the original architecture, roof form, detailing and fenestration of the host building. Roof lights should be modest in size and be placed and aligned sensitively to respect the character of the host building. On locally distinct building types (including heritage assets) they will normally be resisted on prominent roof pitches. Where considered appropriate they should be small in size and aligned with the windows on the elevation below. 9. The Council’s Building Alterations & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (SPD) has similar objectives. 10. Many of the buildings along Kirkstall Road have been altered and extended and many now have roof additions and alterations of various forms. Dormer windows and roof-lights are commonplace and they have blended into the street scene with varying degrees of success. 11. The Appeal dwelling is located on the inside of a slight bend in the road, has a short front garden and occupies an elevated position above the street level. This, together with the prominent front gables and chimneys on the Appeal dwelling and the adjacent dwellings restrict visibility of the front roof-slope of the Appeal property from within the street scene. 12. The proposed two conservation style rooflights would be modest in size and would be fitted flush with the roof tiles. They would be viewed as being symmetrically sited on either side of the front gable projection and would sit Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3196697 3 below the ridge line of the front gable feature. In addition, they would respect the width of the window panes of the windows on the front elevation of the dwelling and the area above the central gable would remain free from windows or other additions. 13. Whilst policy Q11 of the Local Plan and the SPD generally seek to resist rooflights on front roof-slopes they do allow for exceptions. In this instance, as a result of the above factors the proposed roof lights would respect and be visually subordinate both in relation to the roof and the front elevation of the host building. They would be visually discrete from where they could be seen within the street scene and would be readily assimilated into a street scene where, as stated by the Appellant, rooflights are evident and have been found to be acceptable by the Council. Accordingly, the proposed rooflights would not conflict with policy Q11 of the Local Plan or the SPD. 14. Finally, the Council has suggested the imposition of conditions which require the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted drawings and to be constructed using external materials which match those of the host dwelling. These conditions are necessary, to ensure the proposal blends in appropriately with the street scene and in the interests of certainty. 15. I conclude that the proposed rooflights would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the pair of dwellings and the TPCA and would not detract from the significance of the TPCA. It would therefore comply with policies Q11 & Q22 of the Local Plan, the SPD and the NPPF. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR