Erection of single storey ground floor rear extension and 2 rear dormers together with the installation of 2 rooflights to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 August 2018 by R Sabu BA(Hons), BArch, MA, PgDip ARB an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th September 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/18/3200013 38 Orlando Road, London SW4 0LF  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 Mrs Alexandrou against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth.  The application Ref 17/05280/FUL, dated 30 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 January 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of single storey ground floor rear extension and 2 rear dormers together with the installation of 2 rooflights to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey ground floor rear extension and 2 rear dormers together with the installation of 2 roof lights to the front elevation at 38 Orlando Road, London SW4 0LF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref APP/N5660/D/18/3200013, dated 30 October 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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: 38OR-301-01A, 38OR-301-02B, 38OR-301-03B, 8OR-301-04D. 3) No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces and window frames of the rear dormer windows hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Preliminary Matter 2. I have used the description of the proposal from the Council’s decision notice on the basis that it accurately and succinctly describes the proposal in preference to the considerably longer more detailed description given on the application form. 3. Since the planning application was refused by the Council, construction of a rear extension at 40 Orlando Road was begun. The circumstance upon which the planning application was decided by the Council has therefore changed. This appeal has been decided in relation to the approved extension at 40 Orlando Road, since construction was well underway at the time of the site visit. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200013 2 4. The appellant submitted updated proposed drawings that indicate smaller and repositioned front roof lights with the appeal documentation. However, as interested parties have not been consulted on nor had opportunity to comment on the revisions, I have considered and determine the appeal based on the scheme as determined by the Council. Main Issues 5. The main issues are:  Whether the proposed development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the existing building at 38 Orlando Road and Clapham Conservation Area; and  The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 40 Orlando Road with particular reference to sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight and overshadowing. Reasons Character and Appearance Rear Extension 6. While the Council has not provided an appraisal of Clapham Conservation Area (CAC), the appellant has undertaken their own appraisal which notes among other things, that “the character of the conservation area is derived from this rich variety of buildings from all architectural periods which serve as primary evidence of the historical, social and economic development of Clapham.” I broadly agree with this statement and in addition, 38 Orlando Road contributes to this significance by being in harmony with the other historic dwellings on this quiet residential street characterised by 3 storey semi-detached properties with 2 storey bay windows set out in pleasant proportions with lively architecture. 7. The footprint of the extension would not be greater than the depth of the original house. Furthermore, the rear extension would not extend much beyond the rearmost extent of the existing house. Therefore in terms of footprint, the proposed rear extension would be subordinate to the host property. The height of the flat roof of the single storey extension would be set below the first storey window of the closet extension and the mono-pitched side roof would be located low enough such that the two storey closet extension would retain visual primacy. Consequently, when viewed against the existing three storey building and two storey closet extension, the rear extension would be subordinate to the host property in terms of scale, mass and bulk. 8. Policy Q5 of Lambeth Local Plan 2015 (Local Plan) sets out a general requirement for proposed developments to sustain local distinctiveness and Policy Q22 sets out ways to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas. Local Plan Policy Q11 and Building Alteration and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (SPD) are more prescriptive in terms of the requirements for building alterations and extensions with particular reference to heritage assets. 9. The planning Inspector who decided an appeal for the rear extension at 40 Orlando Road1 noted “Whilst the Clapham Conservation Area is a designated heritage asset, the appeal building is not itself a designated or non-designated 1 Appeal Ref APP/N5660/D/17/3184159 Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200013 3 heritage asset. Although the building is a component part of a heritage asset, the conservation area, this does not confer heritage status upon it.” While every case must be decided on its own merit, I agree with the Inspector on this principle. Therefore, the existing building and proposed development must be considered in terms of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area, although the host building is not of itself a designated heritage asset. 10. I note that the SPD indicates that wrap around extensions are not acceptable for heritage assets and that wrap-around extensions may be acceptable in principle for non-heritage assets as long as they are subordinate to their host property. On this basis, given that the host house is not a listed building and my conclusion that the rear extension would be subordinate to it as outlined above, the principle of having a wrap-around extension on this property would be consistent with the SPD. Similarly, the extension would not be contrary to Local Plan Policy Q11(e), which requires that infill extensions should be set back from the corner of the main return on heritage assets. 11. The Council has noted the dismissal of an appeal for a similar single storey rear extension for the same property in 2011. The reasons for dismissal centred on the horizontal emphasis of the proposed extension exaggerated by a long run of bi-fold doors which that Inspector concluded would have undermined the vertical emphasis of the existing building, thus harming the character and appearance of the original building. The appellant has addressed such concerns by introducing a set-back along the rear elevation, reducing the width of the opening and proposing fewer bi-fold doors. I consider that these changes adequately address the concerns raised and the current proposal would be in proportion with the existing building. Additionally, the appeal was dismissed under a previous development plan and SPD. For all of these reasons I attach limited weight to the previous dismissal. 12. I note the Council’s objection to the proposed aluminium powder coated bi-fold doors on the grounds that it would not respond to the host building’s original architecture and detailing. During my site visit I noted that all of the existing windows on the rear elevation of the building have modern UPVC frames. Therefore when viewed against rest of the rear elevation, I find that the proposed aluminium powder coated bi-fold doors would be in keeping with their context such that they would not harm the character and appearance of the host building. Rear Dormers 13. The proposed rear dormers would be set down from the ridge of the roof, set up from the eaves and inward from the flanks. Therefore notwithstanding that the bigger of the two dormers would be larger than some others on the street; they would both be subordinate to the roof. 14. Although the Council has stated that “UPVC (as proposed) would not be acceptable in a conservation area”, the appellant has confirmed that the loft space would have “2no. rear conservation roof dormers matching the adjoining properties at no. 36 and 40 Orlando Road.” They have expanded on this in their Statement of Case to say that the 2 dormer windows “would be clad in lead and would have timber sash windows appropriate to the host building.” I am therefore satisfied that the design of the dormer windows as described by the appellant would preserve the character and appearance of the building and the CAC and comply with Local Plan Policy Q11. A condition to control these Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200013 4 materials would remove any ambiguity and make the proposed dormer windows acceptable in planning terms. 15. I acknowledge that the attic floor level to window sill height would be lower than the 1 metre advised in paragraph 4.5 of the SPD. While this may be a useful guide for assisting with good design, for the reasons outline above, the proposed dormer would sit comfortably within the context of the host roof plane and wider building. Front Roof Lights 16. Having regard to Local Plan Policy Q11(l), in principle the installation of front roof lights in this sensitive location is acceptable to the Council subject to design. Although concerns have been raised with regard to their size and siting on the roof, the aerial photographs submitted by the appellant show that the front roof lights on neighbouring properties are of varying sizes and are sited in irregular positions on the roof such that the proposed roof lights would not appear out of keeping with others along the street. The proposed roof lights are set in from the ridge, eaves and flanks sufficiently that they would not dominate the roof. Furthermore, during my site visit I noted that the roof lights along Orlando Road were generally not visible from street level. Summary of character and appearance 17. For all of the foregoing reasons, overall the appeal development would not have a detrimental effect on the host building and would preserve the character and appearance of the CAC. Consequently, in this respect, the scheme accords with Local Plan Policies Q5, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and Building Alteration and Extensions 2015. Living Conditions 18. Construction of a rear extension at 40 Orlando Road, which was approved at appeal, was well underway at the time of my site visit. Consequently, the proposed rear extension at 38 Orlando Road would have a different relationship to its neighbour than when assessed by the Council. The proposed rear extension would not project as far as the extension being built at No 40. Therefore there would be little impact in terms of sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight and overshadowing as result of the depth of the building. 19. I acknowledge that the proposed extension would be approximately 0.48m higher at the boundary than the extension at No 40. However, given that No 40 is to the south of the proposed extension, this difference would not be great enough to significantly affect the roof lights of No 40 in terms of the living conditions of its occupiers with regard to loss of daylight and overshadowing. 20. Therefore, the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 40 Orlando Road with particular reference to sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight and overshadowing. Consequently, in this regard, it would accord with Policy Q2 of the Local Plan. Conditions and Conclusion 21. A condition specifying the approved plans would be necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring approval of the materials for the rear dormers would also be necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200013 5 22. For all of the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should, subject to the identified conditions, be allowed. R Sabu INSPECTOR