New rear annex extension to half of existing terrace at second floor level with London Stock bricks to match existing; 2 no. linked dormer windows at the rear; and 3 no. rooflights at the front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 July 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/18/3200747 25 Lydon Road, London, SW4 0HP  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 Mark Hopkins against the decision of London Borough of Lambeth Council.  The application Ref 17/05651/FUL, dated 20 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018.  The development proposed is new rear annex extension to half of existing terrace at second floor level with London Stock bricks to match existing; 2 no. linked dormer windows at the rear; and 3 no. rooflights at the front. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new rear annex extension to half of existing terrace at second floor level with London Stock bricks to match existing, 2 no. linked dormer windows at the rear and 3 no. rooflights at the front at 25 Lydon Road, London, SW4 0HP in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/05651/FUL, dated 20 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) Except where indicated otherwise on the planning application form and the approved drawings, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 578-P1.004-D, 578-P1.011-D, 578-P1.012-D, 578-P1.013-C, 578-P1.104-E, 578-P1.105-G, 578-P1.111-C, 578-P1.112-E, 578-P1.113-C & 1:1250 Site Location Plan. Procedural Matter 2. The description of the development proposed recorded in the heading above differs in part from that on the planning application form. The officer report and Grounds of Appeal indicate that the initial proposal was amended at the rear of the house, with linked dormers replacing a new mansard roof. This is shown clearly on the plans used by the Council when coming to its decision. These plans also show three rooflights at the front. I have amended the Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200747 2 description to reflect more accurately what the proposal before me now comprises. Main Issues 3. I consider that these are the effects of the proposal on firstly, the character and appearance of the property and the Clapham Conservation Area; and secondly, the living conditions of the occupiers of no.27 Lydon Road, with respect to levels of daylight and sunlight. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-late Victorian terraced house with 3 main floors of accommodation. The annex extension would create a bathroom on part of the flat roof of an existing 2 storey rear return. The alterations at roof level would enable the loft to be converted into an en suite bedroom. First main issue – effect on character and appearance 5. The site is within the Clapham Conservation Area. I consider that its principal heritage significance lies in the relationship of the Common to the Victorian housing associated with it. Along the secondary residential roads away from the edge of the Common, such as Lydon Road, the generally well-preserved frontages make an important contribution to heritage interest. A variety of changes has taken place at the rear, but the basic pattern of sizeable rear returns has been preserved, and they give a distinctive and pronounced “staggering” to the building line that is characteristic of the conservation area. 6. The Council does not object to the character or appearance of the annex extension. It would terminate below the main eaves line. This would maintain subordination, which Policy Q11 in the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) says is a key consideration for extensions. It would not alter the basic footprint of the return, and would be in keeping with 3 other annex extensions in the terrace. So long as a planning condition is imposed to ensure the use of matching materials, I consider that this part of the proposal would be of satisfactory character and appearance. 7. The Council does not object in principle to the rear dormers, but says that they should be more policy compliant. Policy Q11 says that dormers should be subordinate, with the roof remaining as the dominant element in the composition; and in heritage assets, be modest in size and aligned with the openings below. Further guidance is given in the Council’s Building Alterations & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document [SPD] (2015). This says that linked individual dormers can be an acceptable way of increasing headroom where attics are small. 8. In the existing loft, adequate headroom is confined to a narrow zone under the ridge. The individual dormers would be of modest size, with smaller windows than those on lower floors, aligned with openings below. The dormers would be placed well above the eaves line. The gap between them would be narrower than each dormer, and less than the generous space between the outer side of each dormer and the boundaries of the property. I estimate that the linking section would be recessed back from the front edge of the dormer roof by around two thirds of its depth, well above the one third stipulated at paragraph 4.7 of the SPD. The main roof would remain the dominant element at the top of the house. Taking all these considerations into account, I find that the Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200747 3 linked dormers would be generally policy compliant. Moreover, I consider that their design, scale, form and positioning would not detract materially from the house or its surroundings, and would not be seen in the public realm. They would not be obtrusive, and would be smaller in scale than existing dormers to either side. 9. Three small conservation type rooflights would be grouped centrally near the top of the front roofslope. I glimpsed rooflights in some nearby streets, where the greater height of the terraces makes it difficult to see the front slopes of the roofs. In Lydon Road, each of 4 houses opposite the appeal site has 3 rooflights, as does no.27 next door. I do not know anything of the circumstances behind these occurrences, other than at no.27, which was approved before adoption of the Lambeth Local Plan. Policy Q11 says that rooflights should be modest in size and placed and aligned sensitively to respect the character of the host building. I consider that this would be the case and that, subject to conservation rooflights being installed as shown, they would not detract from the house and the local streetscene or its heritage significance. 10. I conclude that the proposal would not detract materially from the character and appearance of the property. The character and appearance, and heritage significance, of the Clapham Conservation Area would be preserved, reflecting the statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. There would be compliance with Policy Q11, and with requirements in Policies Q5 & Q22 regarding local distinctiveness and conservation areas. The purposes of relevant guidance in the Council’s SPD would be respected. Second main issue – effect on living conditions 11. The officer report says that the BRE 45 degree test has been carried out “in relation to the neighbouring rear window contained at second floor level”, at no.27. From my observations on site, the nearest opening is actually a door, with a glass panel in its upper section. If the internal arrangement at no.27 is the same as at no.25, it would take access off a landing on the staircase. I have no evidence that the nearest opening is to a habitable room. As a result, I consider that the annex extension would not reduce daylight or sunlight levels inside no.27 as much as to materially harm living conditions. 12. The occupier at no.27 has also objected on grounds of loss of view and making their sun terrace “unusable as such”. The nearest second floor window is some distance beyond the door, so I consider outlook would not be significantly impaired from it. The annex extension would be sited south east of no.27, and loss of sunlight on the terrace nearest the house would be minimal after mid- morning. Consequently I find that significant harm would not be caused to outlook or use of the terrace at no.27. 13. The annex would be well set away from the boundary with no.23, and I agree with the officer report that an unreasonable effect on living conditions there would not arise. 14. I conclude that the proposal would not cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.27 Lydon Road, with respect to levels of daylight and sunlight. Local Plan Policy Q2, which protects neighbouring amenity, would be complied with. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/18/3200747 4 Overall conclusion 15. I have found in favour of the proposal with respect to both main issues. 16. The materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the works need to match existing, or to accord with details provided, in order to secure a satisfactory outcome in the conservation area, bearing in mind that I am obliged to give great weight to the conservation of the heritage asset. For the avoidance of doubt, it is also necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 17. Subject to these planning conditions, I conclude overall that planning permission can be given, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR