Appeal 6007081

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the Council’s decision notice, as it provides a more accurate description of the proposed development. It also aligns with the description in the appellant’s appeal form.

The appellant has submitted a [name] with the appeal. Established case law requires consideration of whether or not such material introduces a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the proposal, and whether its admission would result in procedural unfairness. In this case, the additional document is intended to respond to one of the Council’s reasons for refusal and does not materially alter the nature of the proposed development. Furthermore, the Council has reviewed the statement and confirmed it will no longer defend the fire safety reason for refusal. As there is no longer any dispute on this matter, it does not form part of the

The appeal site is situated outside of but near to the Camberwell Green Conservation Area (CA). Although there is no statutory protection for the setting of a CA in the Act, paragraph 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires consideration of any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, including from development within its setting. The main parties have referred to the CA in their evidence. I have therefore considered this matter as part of the main issue.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to the setting of the nearby CA.

The appeal site is located on [address], close to [address], a well trafficked high street. A supermarket car park lies to the rear adjacent to [address]. Buildings in the area are generally between two and four storeys, many with commercial uses at ground floor level. Moving away from the high street, the character becomes increasingly residential, with three and four-storey buildings, including the [name] and residential terraces, lining the route.

The nearby CA encompasses much of [address] and the surrounding streets. [address] Conservation Area Appraisal (2003) identifies its significance as deriving, in part, from the ordered form and surviving historic fabric of many of its buildings, regular fenestration rhythms and a limited palette of materials, notably yellow London stock brick with occasional red brick and stucco. Consequently, the consistent building arrangement, materials and composition form unifying characteristics across the CA, contributing to its special interest and significance.

Number [address] (No 12) is a three-storey mid-terrace property subdivided into five self-contained flats1. Its roof form is largely unaltered, comprising a butterfly roof that is repeated across the wider terrace (Nos 8 – 14). While concealed to the front and side by a parapet, the roof is readily appreciable from the rear. Constructed in yellow stock brick, the terrace has undergone various extensions and alterations. Nevertheless, its frontage retains a coherent and regular pattern of fenestration at first and second-floor level. Together with its consistent roof form, this contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed mansard roof would enlarge the upper-floor flat and would occupy an isolated, off-centre position within the overall terrace. While the proposed windows would align with the existing upper-floor fenestration and the roof angle would accord with guidance in the Council’s Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2025) (SPD), the extension would sit immediately behind the parapet, abutting raised party walls with no meaningful set-in. As a result, the loft extension would read as a continuation of the parapet and would be visible from parts of [address] and [address], and from surrounding buildings. The proposed materials would contrast with existing materials. Although the hanging tiles and felted roof could be muted in colour, this would not overcome the effect of the off-centre positioning and incongruous form of the extension.

The appellant has referred to other mansard roof extensions in the area2 and to an allowed appeal decision3. However, the full planning circumstances in those cases are not before me and I have determined the appeal on its own merits. While mansard roofs present in the local area, I observed that, in the vicinity of the appeal site, they typically extend the full width of buildings. In contrast, the proposed extension would disrupt the unbroken run of butterfly roofs that characterises the terrace, contrary to the guidance in the SPD. Accordingly, these examples have not been determinative in my overall assessment.

Overall, the proposed extension would appear cramped, visually intrusive and would dominate the existing roofscape, to the detriment of the character and appearance of 1 Council ref: 25/AP/2760 2 53 and [address] 3 [address] the area. For the same reasons, it would harm the significance of the nearby CA through development within its setting.

Given the scale, nature and location of the proposed extension, the degree of harm to the significance of the CA would be at the lower end of less than substantial. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Public benefits would be derived from the creation of a larger flat with an additional bedroom and living space above an existing building, together with temporary construction employment. These benefits carry limited weight. The Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, irrespective of whether there would be less than substantial harm to significance. Even cumulatively, the weight of public benefits in favour of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh harm to the significance of the CA.

I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to the setting of the nearby CA. In this regard, it would conflict with Policy D4 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies P13 and D14 of The Southwark Plan 2019 -2036 (2022) which seek to deliver good design, require development to provide a positive response to the context and to ensure the height, scale, massing and arrangement respond positively to the existing townscape, character and context. The proposal also fails to accord with the achieving well-designed places and historic environment protection policies of the Framework.

The site lies close to the [name] listed building known as 1-9 (odd) Jephson Street4, which forms an attractive and coherent group of terraced houses with Nos 2-9 (even). The significance of this group is derived in part from its age, surviving historic fabric and its arrangement. In accordance with my duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I am required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. This group lies to the rear and side of No 12, within a discreet area with a limited visual relationship to [address]. In this context, I am satisfied that the proposed development would preserve the setting of this listed building and would cause no harm to its significance. Nevertheless, this does not alter my conclusions in relation to the main issue.

The Council has found the proposed development to be acceptable in all other respects, including in relation to its effect on living conditions, refuse or access. However, this does not overcome the harm to the character and appearance of the area identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.