Appeal 6005121

The appeal is dismissed.

The application description of the proposal as set out in the final bullet point above was amended by the Council in its processing and determination of the application and this amendment is not disputed in the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Nos. 14 & [address] as a semi-detached pair and in turn the effect on the street scene.

The appeal scheme seeks to combine existing permissions and deemed consents as outlined in the [name] with a first-floor side extension, and it is in this wider context that the proposal must be considered. However, also relevant is the refused application ref. 23/03215/FUL and the Inspector’s comments in the subsequent dismissed appeal regarding the gap to No. 12.

In reaching their decision the Inspector observed the proximity of the two-storey flank wall of No. 12 to the boundary with No. 14 and that this property had roughly the same front building line. These factors weighed against any relaxation of the minimum 1m gap referred to in paragraph 4.68 of the [name] 2023 (‘the SPD’) and in my view they continue to apply.

Whilst the current proposal would leave more space at first floor level than its predecessor, the Council’s concerns remain that the additional development would both create a terracing effect with No. 12 and have an adverse impact on the dwelling’s appearance by failing to visually integrate with the pitched roofs of the Appeal Decision Ref, 6005121 proposed ground floor extension and the gabled roof permitted under the General Permitted Development Order. I consider this objection to be soundly based.

In coming to this view, I have carefully considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal and noted the submissions regarding the marginal shortfall in the required 1m gap to the boundary with No. 12. I acknowledge that the 0.03m difference would not in itself be easily discernible. This notwithstanding, the further first floor extension combined with the already permitted ground floor and roof extensions would have a cumulative impact in terms of the host dwelling’s scale and bulk that would unacceptably increase the imbalance with No. 16 as the other half of the semi-detached pair, thereby detracting from the pleasing symmetry of the front elevations of Nos. 14 and 16. The additional built form would also increase the terracing effect in the street scene by the further erosion of the gap with No. 12, with the need to retain it for visual amenity also increased by the significant additions already approved.

In these circumstances I therefore consider that the [name] is correct to refer to the SPD’s advice in paragraph 4.68 that in areas where side space is important to local character even a metre gap above ground level between adjoining buildings may be inadequate. I additionally endorse the Council’s assertion that the proposed extension would not satisfactorily integrate with the proposed gable roof and the roof of the side extension, given the variety of roof pitches and the increased complexity of the design.

Policy Q5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2021 seeks to preserve the local distinctiveness of Lambeth. Policy Q11 requires alterations to buildings to be sympathetic to their original characteristics and their context. On balance, I find that the appeal scheme would be in harmful conflict with both policies and with the Council’s SPD.

For the reasons explained, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.