Appeal 6001846

The appeal is dismissed.

Documents submitted with the planning application and subsequent appeal1 have the address of 15D and [address] (Nos 15D and 15E) and refer to a joint application. However, the address on the planning application form, the plans and the appeal application relate only to No 15D. I have nothing before me which indicates that this appeal relates to No 15E and have therefore assessed this appeal in relation to No 15D only.

I have amended the description of the development in the banner heading above to that used on the decision notice and the appellant in his appeal statement. This is a more comprehensive description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal.

During the course of the appeal, the appellant submitted photographs of plans relating to addresses referred to in their appeal statement2. The intention of this was to provide a visual interpretation of their case. I am satisfied that my acceptance of these did not evolve the scheme or prejudice anyone with an interest in the outcome of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal premise is a four-storey semi-detached dwelling of modern construction. From the evidence before me, both No 15D and the adjoining property No 15E were built as a pair and currently mirror each other in scale and roofscape. Currently, the 1 Design and Access statement, and Planning Appeal Submission statement 2 [address], [address]/[address], [address], and Design and [name] for 15D & [address]. front roof slope of No [address] and has a relatively slender gable-fronted dormer set approximately central to the double-height bay window. The design of which is reflective of the traditional design of other properties on the same side of [address]. The rear roof slope is largely obscured from view by the property itself and by the orientation of other properties nearby. [name] 15D, I saw that there were predominantly two bedrooms and an ensuite on the upper floor.

The proposed development seeks to erect mansard dormers comprising different designs on the front and rear roof slopes. To the front, it would comprise two dormer-style windows positioned offset to the windows below, and to the rear, two windows would be inserted within the almost vertical roofscape.

The Council have drawn my attention to paragraphs 4.107 and 4.108 of the [name] 4 – Building Alterations, Extensions and [name] 2023 (SPD). Paragraph 4.107 relates specifically to new mansards on traditional buildings. The Council do not dispute that No 15D is of a modern architectural style, which the appellant states was built in approximately 2005. From the evidence before me, even if the proposed mansards would conflict with point(s) 1-10, in my mind, this paragraph is not applicable, given its modern construction.

With regards to paragraph 4.108, this acknowledges that the points in 4.107 are not appropriate for all building types, and that, for example, on 20th-century and modern properties, a more contemporary approach may be required. It goes on to state that such approaches are best explored through pre-application discussions. There is, however, nothing from my reading that specifically requires applicants to do so or sets out suggested design guidance for applicants to follow. Therefore, in this context, this paragraph has limited weight.

Policy Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2025 (September 2021) (Local Plan), however, relates to building alterations and extensions and is applicable. It sets out circumstances where the Council will be supportive of alterations and extensions. These include, amongst other matters, that its design responds positively to the original architecture and roof form of the host building. [name]. relates to new dormers and sets out, amongst other matters, that new dormers on front roof pitches should be avoided unless similar buildings in the immediate context already exhibit appropriate front dormers.

With the exception of the relatively slender gable-fronted dormers to properties on [address], I saw no other property within the immediate context with front dormers. This is not disputed by the appellant. Whilst some properties on [address] have dormers of varying sizes to the front roof slopes, these properties are on a different road with their front elevations orientated approximately 90 degrees to No 15D, and therefore not within the immediate context. Furthermore, point ii of criterion I. also states that the new dormer should be subordinate, and set below the ridge and in from the eaves and flanks. Whilst the proposed front dormer would be no higher than the ridge, it would project across the whole roof slope and extend the flank elevation significantly upwards. The proposed front mansard design would, in my mind, therefore conflict with Local Plan Policy Q11.

To the rear, the mansard design would extend upwards from the current eaves almost vertically and project across the whole roof slope. I saw that the neighbouring property, [address], and several properties on [address], had rear dormers of varying sizes within the rear roof slope, which were visible from both [address] and from within the rear garden of No 15D. Whilst these form part of the established character of the area, none of the dormers which I saw extended the flank elevation upwards, but rather they were set within the roof slope.

Even if the ridge line were to remain at the current height, the proposed rear mansard would extend the flank elevation upwards. This would, in my mind, significantly alter the character of the roof and the architectural integrity of the original building, especially when viewed alongside No 15E and other properties within the streetscene. The proposed rear mansard design would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policy Q11.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of examples which they contend are similar to the appeal before me3. [name] have been provided with the planning reference number for some addresses and photographs of plans for others, I do not have all the details before me or the circumstances which led to those decisions being taken. As such, from the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that the circumstances are comparable. In any case, I have considered the appeal on its own merits.

I am mindful that the proposal would improve the internal living conditions for the appellant and his family by providing additional head height to the bedrooms on the upper floor. However, a grant of planning permission would give rise to unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of both the host property and the surrounding area. The development conflicts with the development plan, and I attach substantial weight to this finding against the appeal.

I conclude that the proposal would result in an incongruent and visually discordant feature, which would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policy Q11, insofar as it seeks to ensure that the design of development positively responds to the original architecture and roof form.

I acknowledge that the Council's description of the property with regard to the storey height is inaccurate. However, given that I have been inside the premises and had access to all floors, this inaccuracy has limited weight in my assessment.

Whether or not the Council undertook a site visit is not within the scope of my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations, including the personal circumstances of the appellant, do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.