Erection of a 2-storey pitched roof rear extension, alterations to the fenestration on the rear elevation at first-floor level, and the insertion of a rooflight in the front roofslope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 May 2019 by J D Westbrook BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/19/3223638 63 Lamberhurst Road, London, SE27 0SD • 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 MAP Architecture against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth. • The application Ref 18/05090/FUL, dated 20 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 January 2019. • The development proposed is the erection of a 2-storey pitched roof rear extension, alterations to the fenestration on the rear elevation at first-floor level, and the insertion of a rooflight in the front roofslope. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the character and appearance of the area around Lamberhurst Road and Greenhurst Road. Reasons 3. No 63 is a semi-detached house situated on a corner plot at the junction of Lamberhurst Road with Greenhurst Road. It is in a prominent position being sited directly opposite the junction of Greenhurst Road with Truslove Road. There is a degree of commonality in the design of the houses along this part of Lamberhurst Road with a prevalence of hipped roofs with catslide elements, rendered elevations and, in the case of semi-detached houses, “front” doors in the side elevation. In addition, those houses on corner plots have a side projection resulting in a complex hipped roof profile. 4. The proposed rear extension at No 63 would have accommodation on two floors. The first floor would be contained within a steep-sided catslide roof that would extend upwards to a little above the existing eaves level. It would have a rear gable end with a brick façade. The extension would be full width across the rear of the main body of the house, and would project out some 4 metres to the rear. By virtue of its scale and position, it would be highly visible in the street scene. Whilst there would appear to be a few houses in the vicinity with side dormer extensions or small rear extensions, there are no obvious examples of rear extensions over two floors on the scale of that proposed. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/19/3223638 2 5. Policy Q5 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) indicates that development proposals will be supported where it is shown that the design of development is a response to positive aspects of the local context in terms of, amongst other things, urban block and grain, patterns of space and relationship, townscape character; built form, including roofscapes; siting, and materials. Policy Q11indicates that when considering proposals for extensions to buildings the council will generally expect proposals to have a design which positively responds to the original architecture, roof form, and detailing of the host building and other locally distinct forms (such as group characteristics), while subordination will generally be a key consideration with such proposals. 6. In this case, the roof pitch would mirror that of the main house and there is evidence that certain windows would respect the form of those in the existing rear elevation. However, the gable end of the extension would appear incongruous in the context of the complex hipped form of the roof of the main house, and the use of brick would not conform to the rendered appearance of the rest of the host property and that of the neighbouring houses. In addition, the extensive use of full-height glazing in the ground floor of the extension would not sit well with the “Arts and Crafts” style adopted in the main house and other houses in the vicinity. 7. I do not consider that the scale, design and materials of the proposed extension would be a positive response to the local context or to the original architecture and detailing of the host building and other locally distinct forms. This would be exacerbated by the prominent position of the appeal property in the street scene, whereby the extension would be readily viewed along Greenhurst Road and from the junction with Truslove Road. 8. In conclusion, I find that the proposed extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area around Lamberhurst Road and Greenhurst Road. On that basis, it would conflict with Policies Q5 and Q11 of the LP. Other Matter 9. The Council, in its decision notice, referred to the lack of a sunlight and daylight assessment. This has been provided with the appeal statement. I note that the proposed extension would be largely north-facing, and that the eaves height would be relatively low with a sloping roof above. From the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 61 Lamberhurst Road by way of light. However, this does not compensate for the harm to local character and appearance that would result from the proposal, as considered under the main issue above. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR