Appeal 3261089

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two storey side extension, floor plan redesign and all associated works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/02125/FUL, dated 26 June 2020, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the two storey side extension, floor plan redesign and all associated works: [name], 9083-401-02 Existing Block Plan, 9083-402-02 Approved Block Plan, 9083-403-02 [name], 9083-101-02 [name], 9083-102-02 Existing Roof Plan, 9083-201-02 [name], 9083- 202-02 [name], 9083-301-02 Existing Section, 9083-103-02 [name], 9083-104-02 Approved Roof Plan, 9083-203-02 [name], 9083-204-02 [name], 9083-302- 02 Approved Section, 9083-105-02 [name], 9083-106-02 Proposed Roof Plan, 9083-205-02 [name], 9083-206-02 [name], 9083-303-02 Proposed Section.

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.

The description of development differs between the documents in this appeal. The Council’s Decision Notice and the Appeal Form describe the proposal as two storey side extension and roof extension, single storey rear extension and alterations to fenestration whereas the application form described the development as two storey side extension, floor plan redesign and all associated works at [site address] .

Planning permission was previously granted for the single storey rear extension, some alterations to the floor plan and changes to the fenestration (ref 19/00964/FUL) and, at the time of my site visit, I observed that this extension and alterations appeared to have been constructed. As such, in the interests of clarity, and as it best describes the proposal before me, I have adopted the description of development from the application form and will determine the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; including whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Estate Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property, [site address] , is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling which occupies a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. [address] is characterised by its tightly-knit pattern of development with rows of similar detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind low level boundary treatments and small front garden areas. The dwellings which occupy the corner plots along the length of the road do not share a consistent character and appearance and differ notably in terms of their designs and their proximity to the side boundaries of the plots within which they sit.

[site address] is situated within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). I am required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In addition to the requirement under section 72 of The Act, the CA is also a designated heritage asset as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The proposal is for a two-storey side extension which would largely infill the gap between the side elevation of the property and the plot boundary. The proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation, in from the side boundary and down from the ridge of the existing dwelling. As such, I consider that the extension would appear as a subordinate addition to the building.

The attractive gable, bay windows and chimney stacks which add interest to the front elevation and match those found on surrounding properties would retain their prominence. Furthermore, the proposed extension would be constructed of materials which would match those used in the existing dwelling and others in the area. The proposal would also incorporate details such as the fenestration, the slope of the pitched roof and the brick soldier course detailing which would reflect those found within the host dwelling and others within the wider area. The proposal would, therefore, ensure that a strong sense of cohesion between the dwellings in the area would remain. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would represent a sympathetic addition to the existing dwelling which would respect its character and appearance.

I note that the degree of symmetry between No 12 and the neighbouring dwelling with which it forms a pair would be reduced. Nevertheless, in my view, the close-knit nature of the area, the intervening planting, the retention of key features and the location of No 12 on a corner plot would ensure that the overall composition of the wider group of buildings would be preserved.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Estate Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would comply with Policies Q2 and Q5 of the Lambeth Local Plan, [name] 2015 (LP). Amongst other things these policies state that development will be supported if visual amenity is not unacceptably compromised and where it is shown that the design of development is a response to positive aspects of the local context and historical character.

The proposal would also accord with Policy Q11 of the LP which states that extensions should generally be subordinate, should not unacceptably imbalance semi-detached pairs, should normally have a lower roof than the main roof and requires a minimum of 1m side space to be retained between extended buildings and the property boundary. The proposal would also meet the expectations set out within Policy Q22 of the LP which seeks to preserve or enhance the Borough’s conservation areas.

In addition to the standard commencement condition, one that requires the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. In order to ensure that the development has a satisfactory appearance, particularly given the sensitive location, I have imposed a condition requiring the materials to be used to match those used in the existing building.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.