Appeal 6008042

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the London Borough of Lambeth and that is the subject of a separate decision.

Concerns have been raised over the Council’s description given to the proposed development. For clarity I have taken the description of the proposed development from the planning application form.

The planning application form indicates that the development has already taken place. Photographs have been provided by the appellant that show the trays in what is said to be a partially completed state. It is not clear whether the works that have taken place would fully conform with the plans that are the subject of this appeal. I have therefore considered the proposal on the basis of the plans that are before me.

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 surrounding area; and b) The living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining neighbouring properties.

The trays would be of some height sited upon and covering the roofscape of the ground floor rear extension. The trays would not have a low-profile appearance that would sit flush upon the roof; therefore, they would not represent an integrated element forming part of the roof. As such, the trays would be prominently visible upon the roof as a result of their size and close proximity to the side elevations of the rear extension. This would create a clearly visible structure upon the roof.

Given the height of the trays, they would have a bulky appearance that would change what is a simple flat roof form of conventional appearance. The trays would not appear as a subordinate addition to the host property. Being constructed of timber, even if painted black, the proposal would not assimilate with the materials of the host property or blend with the edge of roof membrane. As such, the overall size and appearance of the trays would negatively impact upon the character and appearance of the property at the rear.

It has been suggested that the sedum planting would soften the edges of the trays. However, from the information provided the sedum vegetation would be visible as a thin green strip. Given the height of the trays, it would not appear to me that the sedum would shroud the outer sides of the trays such that might obviate my above concerns. I saw that the extension is taller than the fences that run along the common boundaries with the neighbouring occupiers. As such the harm arising from the development would be clearly visible to the existing adjoining occupiers. Any vegetation within neighbouring gardens is not within the appellant’s control and cannot therefore be relied upon to shroud the development such that could mitigate the visual harm to the existing adjoining occupiers.

A condition has been suggested relating to maintaining the perimeter upstand in a dark finish. However, given my findings above it would not be appropriate to rely on such a condition as it would not obviate my concerns sufficiently to allow permission to be granted.

I acknowledge that there may be sedum roofs at other locations within the Borough, such as at The Ethelred Estate in Lambeth. Nonetheless, each proposal must be considered on its individual merit having regard to the circumstances of the site.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan and the [name] 4, Building Alterations, Extensions and Retrofit. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be designed to positively respond to the original architecture, roof form, detailing of the host building and be subordinate.

The Council’s decision letter refers to the [name]; however, the officer report does not discuss any specific elements of the Guide with which the development may conflict. Notwithstanding this, the Guide highlights that careful consideration will need to be given to ensure that living roofs, when added to existing buildings, are carefully integrated both structurally and architecturally. I have found that this would not be the case here.

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook and privacy as part of their residential lives. The additional height created by the trays would be clearly visible in outlook in close proximity to the existing adjoining occupiers. The trays would appear dominant in outlook and, given their height on top of the roof, would create a sense of enclosure. The development would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environment for the neighbouring occupiers.

The raised trays would require access for plant watering and maintenance, and this would create some degree of activity on or near the roof. However, there is no indication that sedum living roofs require a high level of maintenance such that overlooking of the existing neighbouring occupiers private rear outdoor living spaces would take place on a regular basis to a degree that would cause significant harm to the privacy of adjoining occupiers.

There is concern that the planting within the trays could grow to some considerable height, which would exacerbate the dominating appearance and sense of enclosure. However, the planning application has been made for sedum trays. From the information provided this is a low-growing plant. Had all other matters been considered acceptable the sedum living roof planting could be controlled by an appropriately worded planning condition.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining neighbouring properties. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan. That policy seeks, amongst other matters, development to ensure that adequate outlooks are provided avoiding wherever possible any undue sense of enclosure.

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.

It is contended that the London Plan offers policy support for urban greening. However, the Council has not taken this Plan into consideration despite forming part of the statutory development plan. Furthermore, Policy Q9 of the Lambeth Local Plan also supports urban greening but has been given limited weight by the Council. The Council’s officer report does consider this policy and notes its support for urban greening; however, this is to be provided by way of well-designed, integrated solutions, which was not considered to be the case here. I acknowledge there may be wider policy support for urban greening schemes, however the proposal should also be considered in regard of those policies cited within the Council’s decision notice.

The Council advised at pre-application stage that planning permission would not be required, and this reflects guidance that has been published on the Council’s website relating to green roofs. Subsequent enforcement investigations concluded that planning permission was required. Furthermore, the Council has acknowledged that an amended scheme could be acceptable. These are matters that, if necessary, should be taken up with the Council separate to this appeal.

The sedum trays provide environmental and ecological benefits, stormwater management, biodiversity habitat for pollinators, urban heat island mitigation, additional insulation reducing energy consumption, protection of the underlying roof membrane from UV and thermal cycling and air quality improvement through particulate capture. These are benefits of the proposed development. However, these matters do not overcome my above concerns or justify the proposed development. The removal of the sedum trays would result in a loss of net biodiversity when taking into consideration the Environment Act 2021. This would however be a small loss given the limited size of the roofscape.

A condition has been suggested by the appellant that would restrict the use of the roof not to be used as a terrace, balcony or amenity space. However, the proposal is for a sedum planting system and there is no indication that the roof would be used for those purposes. This offers little weight in support of the proposal.

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