Appeal 6003216

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is a residential street comprising terraced dwellings. The appeal properties are adjoining mid terraces. Despite the range of extensions at ground and second floor and some differences in appearance there is a generally harmonious character to the rear. There is an established pattern of first floor rear returns which is a characteristic feature that is also reflected at the rear of properties that front [address]. The consistency of the first-floor rear return arrangements creates a sense of balance that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Although a modest increase in gross internal area, the proposed first floor extension would be a bulky addition within the wider context at the rear of the terraces. It would detract from the generally consistent rear returns and be prominent in views from the rear gardens of [address] and from the rear windows and gardens of properties on [address]. In these views the proposal would draw the eye and unbalance the otherwise harmonious character.

The appeal site is not subject to heritage constraints, and the extension would be mirrored on two properties which would bring a degree of balance to Nos 78 and

Nevertheless, it would be at odds with the prevailing character of the surrounding terraced group and thereby appear incongruous. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the guidance within the [name] 4 (2023) which advises that the elongation of rear returns is unlikely to be acceptable in circumstances where the uniformity of a group is important.

It may be that the proposal would improve the quality, functionality and long-term usability for the families currently occupying the properties, however it would not respond positively to the surrounding context and would not therefore reinforce local distinctiveness, as require by Policy Q5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020- 2035 (2021) (LLP). The use of materials to match the appeal properties and surrounding area would not mitigate the harm identified.

My attention has been drawn to a decision by the Council on the opposite side of [address] at No 23 for a scheme that included a first-floor extension. However, insufficient evidence has been provided and therefore it is not clear that is directly comparable to this case, particularly with regard to the character and appearance at the rear. In any event, I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and come to my own view for the reasons set out above

To conclude, the proposal would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be in conflict with LLP Policy Q5 and Q11, 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.

There would be no significant consequences for the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, however this, and any other policy compliance, would be a neutral matter weighing neither for nor against the proposal. The absence of objections to the scheme is not a reason, in itself, to allow harmful development.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict 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 dismissed.