Appeal 6003127

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single part two storey extension at [address], London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03306/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing [name]-E001; PR-E002; PR-P001; PR-P002; PR-P003; PR-P004 and PR-S001; and

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the appeal property; and the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook.

The appeal site accommodates an end of terrace property on the corner of [address] and [address] and falls within a predominantly residential area. [address] is characterised by relatively uniform semi-detached properties and opposite the appeal site is a block of flats. As a relatively deep corner plot the appeal site creates a sense of spaciousness, which contributes positively to the character of the surrounding area.

The proposed extension would alter the side and rear elevation of the appeal property, principally seen in views from [address] and in more filtered views on approach to the site from [address] because of the surrounding trees. Due to the deep plot the spacing and layout of the proposal would be acceptable, and the scale of the proposed extension would not be a dominant addition to the existing property. The lower ridge height would be subservient and the matching hipped roof profile at first floor would complement the architectural character of the appeal property. Furthermore, the use of materials to match would also help to assimilate the proposal with the appeal property and its surroundings.

The rear building line of the short row of terraces is not uniform owing to the ground floor extension at No 187. As such the proposal would not disrupt any symmetry at the rear of the terraces. In any event, I did not observe it to be particularly prominent in views from [address]. Despite the ground floor extension being deeper than the extension at No 187 and including a modest first floor element, the proposal would readily be accommodated within the spacious context of the appeal site.

A single side entrance would remain in the same position as existing. No additional windows are proposed on the side elevation of the extension and thus the proposal does not seek to mimic the semi-detached properties on [address]. Instead, it would be read as a subordinate rear extension to the appeal property. Furthermore, owing to the deep plot, there would be an element of visual separation between the proposal and the uniform semi-detached properties on [address] and so it would not be a disjointed addition to the street scene.

The proposal would not affect the primary elevation fronting [address], as such the rhythm and symmetry of the short row of terraces would be maintained in views when standing centrally in front of the terraces, from numerous vantage points on [address] and on approach from the north on [address]. Overall, the proposal would successfully integrate into the surrounding area.

To conclude, the proposal would relate positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the appeal property. It would be in accordance with Policy Q5 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) (LLP) insofar as they require development to sustain and reinforce local distinctiveness through a design that is a contextual response to the locality, positively responding to the host building’s detailing and other locally distinct forms.

The rear elevation of the short row of terraces is such that No 189 is set back from No 187 and the appeal property. However, owing to the width and depth of the rear garden, the occupiers have a generally open outlook. While the proposal would extend to the shared boundary with No 189 at ground floor level, because of the separation distance, the proposal would not create a tunnelling effect in combination with the extension at No 187.

The roof pitch of the first-floor addition would be angled away from No 189 and would be located on the side of the appeal property furthest away from the shared boundary. It would not therefore be dominant in views or have an overbearing effect. Given the existing open aspect, a reasonable outlook for the occupiers of No 189 from the rear facing windows and garden would be maintained and the physical and visual presence of the proposal would not result in an unreasonable degree of enclosure.

Consequently, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 189, with regard to outlook and would be in accordance with LLP Policy Q2 which includes a requirement for development to provide adequate outlook, avoiding any undue sense of enclosure.

It is necessary to impose a condition identifying the approved plans for certainty. In the interest of character and appearance a materials condition is also necessary.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.