Appeal 6007747

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - a) The character and appearance of the host property and the terrace; and b) The living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at Nos 14 and [address].

The proposal relates to a mid-terrace property. Although the rear of the terrace has been altered by way of some single storey extensions and roof dormers, it retains a uniformity at first floor level as no extensions have been added. The proposal would be a large addition at first floor level that would disrupt the uniformity of the terrace.

The host property has an existing rear roof dormer. The proposal would host a pitched roof projecting from the existing roof dormer. The different roof forms would have an awkward visual relationship with one another giving the development a confused appearance. Whilst the appellant contends that there are other examples in the Borough where roof junctions occur between rear outriggers and loft conversions I have not been referred to any specific examples.

Given the proposal’s overall size and contrived roof form, the proposal would represent a visually discordant feature at the rear of the terrace and would be visually harmful for this reason. The visual harm arising from the development would be clearly apparent in the outlook of existing neighbouring occupiers from their outdoor living spaces and in wider views where the rear of the terrace can be seen in public views, as can be seen from a computer generated overlay picture provided by the appellant showing the proposal from a nearby street scene.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the terrace. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan and the Lambeth Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to sustain and reinforce local distinctiveness, be subordinate and not to dominate the host building.

The appellant contends that the existing gutter line and ridge set below the main roof would conform with the SPD. However, the SPD highlights the requirements of Policy Q11 for extensions to have a design that positively responds to the host architecture. I have found this not to be the case here.

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. The extension would be of some height and depth. Although being off-set from the common boundaries it would be close to rear windows in the adjoining properties that serve habitable rooms and to outdoor living space. [name].14 being sited at a slightly higher ground level to that of the appeal property, the development would be clearly visible in outlook, and, given its size, it would have a dominating visual impact and create a sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No.14. For the occupiers of No.18 the proposal would create a sense of being enclosed by the visually dominant development when viewed from the outdoor living space at the rear of the property. As such, the proposal would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environments for the neighbouring occupiers and consequently the development would be harmful.

I acknowledge that the outlook from both neighbouring properties is partially interrupted by existing outbuildings along the common boundaries. However, these are single storey structures. Some separation is provided by the side passageway between the appeal site and No.18. Nonetheless, the extension would be of substantial height and depth and would be visible in the outlook of neighbouring occupiers despite these factors.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at Nos 14 and [address]. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan. That policy seeks, amongst other matters, development not to unacceptably harm the amenites of adjoining residents, which includes outlook and to avoid any unacceptable sense of enclosure.

The proposal would be acceptable in term of daylight, sunlight, privacy, overlooking and sustainability and none of the consultees raised an objection to the proposal during the planning application process. The site does not fall within a Conservation Area, and the property is not a listed building. Whilst these are merits of the proposal, they do not overcome my above concern, nor do they justify the harm arising from the proposed development.

The appellant asserts that no site visit was undertaken by the local planning authority during the planning application period. However, this is a matter that, if necessary, should be raised with the Council separate from this appeal. In any event, this concern would not lead me to alter my findings.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.