Appeal 6006469

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a rear dormer roof extension; installation of 3x rooflights to the front roof slope and the replacement of triangular roof over first-floor bay window with flat roof at [site address] , Lambeth, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03851/FUL, and the plans submitted with it.

My formal decision uses the description of development which was given on the Council’s decision notice. This gives an accurate and more appropriate description of the works compared with that given on the original application form, which I have quoted in the banner heading above.

The application was made retrospectively and at the time of my visit I saw the works to be complete.

The main issue is the effects of the dormer extension and associated roof works upon the character and appearance of the host property and wider area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling within a residential street of similar aged and styled properties but where modifications to many are obvious and mixed in terms of materials changes, replacement windows/doors, and roof alterations, especially to the rear. Some properties within the terraces have first-floor square bays with a projecting gabled feature over. Others have similar sized but angled bays with a flat roof over. Both features are equally prevalent but during my visit I was unable to determine any fixed pattern of repetition, or any obvious sense of regimentation to these features, within the street scene.

No [address] bay with a gable. The works undertaken have amounted to a re-roofing and loft conversion, involving a rear box-dormer extension and removal of the front gable with a flat roof replacement. As a consequence of the changes, the property’s eaves and ridge lines have also been raised with a step change between both attached neighbouring properties.

The box dormer to the rear reflects similar extensions in scale and form to the neighbouring properties. The Council also acknowledges that it is similar in size to one previously determined to constitute permitted development following the grant of a Lawful Development Certificate in 2024 (Ref 24/00088/LDCP).

Contrary to the Council’s assertion, I found there to be no clear or consistent rhythm to the roof scape of the terraces along the south side of [address] where the appeal property sits. Along with the irregular pattern to the front bays, I observed a significant array of roofing materials used, along with a variety of boundary markings between neighbouring dwellings at roof level including some demarcated simply by a stark contrast in tile colours and profiles, with others divided by either ridge tiles, fire breaks or other forms of visual upstand. I also noted some minor stepped changes between the ridge and eaves heights of some neighbouring properties at intervals as the buildings’ levels follow a very slight gradient to the road, which rises in a west to east direction.

Whilst the front bay to No [address], its width remains similar in size to both square and angled bays along the terrace. Its new flat roof form does not appear out of character and neither does its altered profile seem overtly out of step or sequence within the apparent irregular pattern of the gabled features.

The change to the ridge height of No 102 appears as if it could be simply related to an alternative choice of ridge tile rather than to any significant increase to the height of the roof. The change to the eaves line is a little more noticeable when seen from [address], but the difference between its alignment with the eaves at Nos 100 and 104 is not stark. It does not draw the eye but merely reflects the melange of variations at this level. Importantly, I found the step change between the roof’s height and its neighbours appeared modest, and no different to some others I observed. Furthermore, the pitch of the front roof slope together with its overall size and proportions appears consistent with the terrace as a whole and with the wider street scene. The altered roof appears as neither dominant nor incongruous in its setting.

I note that the size of the rear dormer and changes to the roof’s ridge and eaves lines conflict with some of the guidance contained within the [name] 4: Building Alterations, Extensions and Retrofit, which was adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document in 2023. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have amplified above, I am unable to identify any visual harm arising. Overall therefore, I am satisfied that the roof extension and associated alterations displays the quality of design that is required to ensure that it adequately safeguards the visual amenity and local distinctiveness of the area. In this regard there is no conflict with Policies Q2, Q5, Q8 or Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035, adopted in 2021.

I have noted comments made by an adjoining occupier. Matters relating to the visual impact of the development have been addressed above. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that the works undertaken have affected the structural integrity or weather protection of neighbouring properties. Neither are such factors directly relevant to the planning merits of the case that is before me.

As the development has taken place, I have no reason to impose any conditions.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.