Hipped rear dormer extension in zinc, with chamfered soffits to include the partial removal of existing rear chimney. Including the insertion of two new flush conservation rooflights to the front roofslopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 February 2019 by Rebecca Thomas MRICS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/D/18/3218682 64 Manor Lane, London SE13 5QP • 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 Luke Sparkes against the decision of the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application Ref DC/18/108290, dated 30 July 2018 was refused by notice dated 25 September 2018. • The development proposed is a hipped rear dormer extension in zinc, with chamfered soffits to include the partial removal of existing rear chimney. Including the insertion of two new flush conservation rooflights to the front roofslopes. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hipped rear dormer extension in zinc, with chamfered soffits to include the partial removal of existing rear chimney. Including the insertion of two new flush conservation rooflights to the front roofslopes, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/18/108290, dated 30 July 2018, 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 strict accordance with the following approved drawings: EX01, PL01, PL03, PL04, PL05, PL06, PL07, PL08 and PL09. Procedural Matters 2. Since the submission of the appeal, the National Planning Policy Framework has been updated in February 2019 (the Framework). Paragraph 212 of the Framework outlines that the policies contained within it are material considerations which should be taken into account in dealing with applications from the day of its publication. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue of the appeal is the whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lee Manor Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/18/3218682 2 Reasons 4. The application site is part of a terrace of properties in the Lee Manor Conservation Area CA of Lewisham. The Conservation Area (CA), in its entirety, is therefore a designated heritage asset. The statutory duty within Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, applies. 5. This is a two storey end-of-terrace dwelling fronting Manor Lane, with a side boundary on Chalcroft Road. The building is of construction and appearance typical of this part of Manor Lane with modern additions; generally terraced brick properties with slate roofs. Decorative front gables and chimneys feature, with detailing usually picked out in white. This building is a variance of a similar theme throughout the CA. 6. The area is characterised by terraced dwellings fronting the street, with varying period features. Many buildings have been extended in various ways, including numerous roof extensions. These can be seen throughout the CA, and vary from box dormer windows to more modern hipped extensions. 7. The area has a distinct residential character, with the nearby park creating a pleasant neighbourhood setting. Manor Lane forms an important through road in the area, with quieter side streets leading off Manor Lane, including Chalcroft Road. 8. Policy 15 of the Lewisham Core Strategy (CS) sets out the ways in which high quality design will be achieved in Lewisham. Section 6 of Policy 15 says that any adverse impact on conservation areas will need to be addressed and that they will be protected from inappropriate built development and change that enhances residential character will be considered acceptable. Policy 16 expects that the value and significance of CAs will continue to be monitored, reviewed, enhanced and conserved according to the requirements of national and London policy. 9. The Lewisham Development Management Local Plan (DM), in particular Policies DM30, DM31 and DM36, are also relevant. Policy DM 31 deals with residential extensions, in particular providing detailed guidance on rear and roof extensions. Part 6.7 of the Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) outlines detailed criteria for considering roof extensions. 10. The CS and DM policies set out above, are broadly consistent with the Framework, which states that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the conservation of the heritage asset. However, I acknowledge that the wording of some of the policies are more prescriptive. The Framework is broader and states that new development should respond to local character and history, add to the overall quality of the area and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and landscaping. 11. The proposed roof extension takes into account the size, shape and form of the existing building. It does not extend beyond the ridgeline of the original building. The modern design of the extension also makes best use of the angles and dimensions of the existing roof, and will not protrude beyond the wall of the first floor rear elevation. I consider that the height and size and of Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/18/3218682 3 the proposed development is a suitable addition. I am of the opinion that the development as a whole is not unduly dominant to the existing building, with the original remaining clearly visible and legible. 12. Whilst the loss of part of a chimney is regrettable, the original chimneys to the Chalcroft Road side would be retained, as would the chimneys to the neighbouring property. The extension would be hipped, following the lines of the roof, and would enable part of the existing roof to be retained and visible. Although modern, the extension would provide legibility to the building, showing the change between original and the new. This would also be achieved through high quality materials and design and in my opinion is a suitable contrast to the original. The use of a simple form, materials and glazing would all add to the contrast. 13. I accept that the site is highly visible from Chalcroft Road and would also be visible from some parts along Manor Lane. However, due to the alignment of the rear extension, and the fact that it follows the hip angle away from the street, I consider that the visibility from Manor Lane will be limited. The extension is easily seen from Chalcroft Road, however this would be the case for any extensions to the appeal property which are above the ground floor level given the end of terrace and corner location of the house. The proposed roof extension is not an unusual feature in the local area I would not appear out of place. I do not consider that the proposal, despite its visibility, would detract from the overall quality or significance of the CA. 14. I acknowledge that the appeal site forms part of a terrace which appears to have only one rear roof extension. This is in contrast to other parts of Manor Lane and the surrounding streets, where a proliferation of rear roof extensions on some terraces can be seen. However, I am particularly mindful of the neighbouring property opposite the appeal site across Chalcroft Road (no 62). This is also a corner property and has a very similar modern rear extension to that proposed in this case, albeit it is set alongside a continuous row of other roof extensions. 15. Whilst this in itself is not sufficient reason for me to accept the development proposed, what is demonstrated to me is that a part of the character and appearance of the CA includes modern roof extensions to the traditional dwellings that have taken place over time. I noted during my site visit that there are numerous extensions to traditional properties, to roofs as well as ground and first floor extensions. These are a wide variety of designs and materials, however what is immediately apparent is that the extensions are clearly identifiable as modern additions to the original. 16. The appeal proposal will not be seen in isolation, rather in the context of its surroundings as previously described. The appeal site is a corner plot which is highly visible from Chalcroft Road, with no. 62 being within those views. The extension at no.62 is of similar materials, construction and design to that proposed by the appeal before me. This shows to me that the proposed extension would take into account the appearance of the immediate surroundings, taking cues not only from the building to be extended but those nearby which have already been extended. As seen in the context of the neighbouring properties, I am of the opinion that the proposed extension would be acceptable and in keeping with the character and appearance of the CA. Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/18/3218682 4 17. The Framework is clear in section 12 that high quality design should be achieved through planning. This includes ensuring that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area over the lifetime of the development, are visually attractive and are sympathetic to local character and history, whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. 18. I have looked at many of the different types of roof extension in the wider CA and nearby streets. It is clear that over time designs have evolved and whilst some designs are of poor quality, there is the opportunity to include high quality designs. I consider that the appeal proposal is such an example, which makes best use of materials and design to provide a high quality extension. 19. The main traditional and period characteristic features to the front of the building would be retained and the new extension will be set back from the front elevation and as such does not interrupt the linear form of the terrace as seen from Manor Lane. As glimpsed from the front elevation I consider that the step back will ensure that the intrinsic character of the building will not be harmed. 20. Whilst the immediate terrace does not include a large number of rooflights to the front elevation, I have had regard to the numerous dwellings with such rooflights in the CA. I consider that it is in keeping with the character and appearance to see rooflights in the roof-slope and I have taken account of the existing rooflight to the front elevation. 21. I recognise that the rooflights do not line up with the windows below, however I am not so concerned with this that I consider permission should be refused on this basis. I accept that the top rooflight cannot easily be re-positioned due to the gable and the hipped roof. If the second, lower, rooflight were to be placed in line with the first floor window, I consider that this could result in a less desirable appearance. This would be because the two windows would end up being very close to each other and thus visible roof materials between the two would be reduced, resulting in a cramped appearance or one where the amount of rooflights could dominate that part of the roof. 22. I have had regard to the specific wording within the residential alterations SPD, in particular the treatment of roofs. The SPD says that “…there will always be schemes which fall outside the context of this document. In those instances a reasonable and pragmatic approach will be taken. The Council is supportive of innovative and creative solutions that demonstrate the necessary high quality of design and detailing.” Taking into account all the considerations above, I consider that the roof extension is of high quality design and detailing. 23. I have also had regard to the treatment of roofs and extensions in the local area, including those discussed by the appellant and LPA. Notwithstanding these examples I find that the overall character and appearance of the CA will be preserved. I am satisfied that the proposals have had regard to the character and appearance of the CA and its setting and do not harm this character and appearance. Therefore, I find that the proposal complies to the policies of the CS and the DM and the SPD, as set out above. I find no conflict with the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/18/3218682 5 Conditions 24. I have imposed conditions as set out in my decision above, having had regard to the proposal and the guidance set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. 25. I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development (1). It is necessary to require compliance with the submitted plans (2) in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the CA. I have not included the requirement for the materials of the extension cladding as a separate condition; I consider that this is secured by the condition (2) which specifies plans, and these plans detail all external materials and their type which I consider is sufficient. Conclusion 26. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed. Rebecca Thomas INSPECTOR