Appeal 6005126

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my visit a rear dormer extension and windows within the front roof slope of the appeal property were in place. This executed scheme differs from the appeal proposal. For the avoidance of any doubt the following assesses the proposal shown on the drawings submitted with the application referred to in the banner heading above, not the recently carried out scheme.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene.

The appeal property forms part of a terrace of 2-storey 20th-century houses with pitched roofs, off-street parking at the front and small gardens to the rear. It is situated in a residential area comprising a mix of terraced and semi-detached houses and blocks of flats. The terrace has a staggered arrangement with [address] being set slightly forward of Nos 98-102, which in turn are set forward of the next houses along.

The houses to either side of the appeal property have full-width dormer additions within the rear roof slopes. Whilst the addition to No.102 is sufficiently low to not be noticeable from the street, the addition to No.106 rises above ridge level and is an incongruous feature which has resulted in clear harm to the unity of the terrace and the appearance of the street scene.

The appeal proposal would primarily comprise the erection of a full-width rear dormer, the roof of which would rise above existing ridge level. To accommodate this a new higher and more set back ridge would be installed. Viewed front-on the proposal would be similar to the roof addition to No.106. Viewed obliquely, looking south, part of the flank wall of the addition would be visible above the set back roof of No.102. Due to its height, size and visibility from the street, the roof extension would be an overly prominent and incongruous element.

The proposal would also include the installation of a large rooflight in the front roof slope of the house. Due to its size this would be out of keeping with the scale and arrangement of fenestration in the frontage of the terrace and therefore it would exacerbate the impact identified above.

Due to its siting, height, size, and appearance I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene. As such it fails to accord with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025) which states that proposals for alterations and extensions will only be supported where they do not adversely impact on the architectural integrity of a group of buildings. There is also conflict with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and the Council's Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019), which states that rear roof extensions should not be visible from the street frontage.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.