Appeal 6006611

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.

[address] is a residential road containing predominantly two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings in short terraces. Many semi-detached and end terrace houses are characterised by a primary hipped roof. To the flank elevation the dwellings feature a stepped down, side section under a gable roof. This secondary roof structure is subordinate in scale exhibiting a lower ridge line and eaves height relative to the main roof. This roof form is a common architectural feature within the immediate street scene which provides consistency and symmetry across the semi-detached and terraced houses and positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

No [site address] (No 22) is an end of terrace dwelling which has the characteristic roof form described above, as does the other end terraced house of the terrace. It therefore positively contributes to the character of the street through symmetry and consistency of form.

The proposal is to alter the roof to provide a pitched roof with gable end with a full width flat dormer to the rear. While the property is not a corner plot and there is a gradient on [address], the front elevation is prominent in the street scene. Despite no change in the height of the roof, the proposed change of roof, including the loss of the hip roof and consequential uniform height of the front elevation wall, would result in the loss of the existing architectural roof feature which positively contributes to the character of the dwelling.

While the bottom of the proposed rear dormer would be set above the eaves, the top, only slightly below the ridge would not appear noticeably lower. It would have an excessive length largely spanning the width of the new roof form and the result would be an overbearing boxlike appearance that would dominate the roof slope and be a prominent and incongruous addition when viewed from adjacent gardens and properties that look towards the rear of the appeal site.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the dwelling.

While a very small number of roofs in the area have been altered to facilitate a rear dormer, these have not occurred on properties exhibiting the architectural roof form at No 22, and the prevailing roofscape is of unaltered roofs. The proposal to change the roof form and front elevation of No 22 would result in a loss of the architectural feature, characteristic of the area, and symmetry to the terrace in which it sits, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the terrace, but also a loss of rhythm and consistency in the wider area. It would look incongruous in the street scene. Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider area, contrary to Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan, 2021. These policies require development to sustain local distinctiveness, be visually attractive and respond to the original architecture and roof form.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.