Do you have any comments on the revised Part 4 of the SPD?

Yes I would like to know when is this policy you going adopt it because I waiting submit my planning application would appreciate your reply

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 4 of the SPD?

The Design Guide is silent on non standard roof extensions, specifically flat roof extensions for additional accommodation. There is Lambeth Local Plan policy Q11wording about this but no design guidance here. Within the policy wording it is detailed as possible to build a roof extension providing additional accommodation as detailed in Q11 L. 'Other types of additional accommodation on roofs will normally only be acceptable on non-standard roof types where they comply with (a) (i) and (b).' Therefore a proposal that positively responds to the original architecture and is subordinate would be acceptable and be in compliance with Q11 K. In practice such designs for flat roof houses in terraces or other groupings are rejected at planning on the grounds that proposals would be an additional storey on a flat roof building, say in a terrace, yet the planning guidance makes such a proposal possible via the wording of the policy as stated above. Guidance from Lambeth along with diagrams as to how flat roof extensions providing additional accommodation would be achievable and acceptable, like for other types of roof alterations and extensions in the Design Guide, would be beneficial to designers.

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 4 of the SPD?

Please advise caution to meet the requirements of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, and avoid disturbance of bats and nesting birds during the breeding season e.g. March to August inclusive. Note that scaffolding for external works may prevent birds such as swifts, an endangered red-listed species that is recorded in Lambeth, accessing their regular nest sites. Alterations, extensions and retrofit offer an opportunity to install integrated swift bricks, a universal nest brick for small bird species, and also integrated nest spaces within eaves. These measures last the lifetime of the building, have no maintenance requirements, offer temperature regulation with future climate change in mind, and aesthetic integration with the design of the building. Swift bricks should be installed in accordance with best practice guidance, e.g. BS 42021:2022. RSPB and Swift Consrvation offer best practice advice for nest spaces within eaves. The Lambeth Council ecology team may provide advice on this?

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 4 of the SPD?

The plan appears to reject (mostly by not mentioning them) any roof extension that is not a mansard or L-shaped dormer. This creates a challenge for all the buildings in which neither options are desirable (there can be a range of reasons, from the general construction of the house, or the fact that other extensions have been performed on adjoining roofs such that a mansard or dormer would jarr locally, or the levels of internal floors are not compatible with a mansard, or the way a house may have been divided into flat, dividing the roof between properties). To some extend, such a challenge is illustrated in the photographs used for the section on "Additions to larger buildings", where there are two examples where a mansard was not installed. Obviously, these buildings are so different from the more usual converted houses seen in Lambeth, that it seems evident that a mansard would not have been appropriate. Nevertheless, the regrettable implication from this omission is that extensions will be resisted in the many cases where roof and house shapes do not lend themselves to neither mansards nor L-shaped dormer (and for which a simple dormer would not provide a suitable indoor space). Whilst it is of course not possible to speculate on all the possible solutions that flat owners and architects may propose in such cases, it would be encouraging if a sub-section could be added to illustrate a few acceptable roof extensions of alternative designs. The final section on Sustainability (pages 49 to 54) is much improved, which is a welcome indication of the council's vision. However, it does sometimes appear as if the rest of the document had been written without much concern for this vision. The Sustainability section does insist on "the effectiveness of the building envelope in providing a suitable indoor environment". Often a mansard roof is not optimising the indoor space, because of the roof pitches. In addition, most mansard include a flat roof section, and flat roofs are known to present a number of challenges in construction and maintenance over pitched roofs. Where an alteration to the roof pitch could provide high quality internal space without forming a mansard, and provided this alteration does not disconnect that roof from that of the neighbouring houses, should this not be encouraged? A policy that supports roof alterations in line with the local roofscape yet does not impose roof shapes that may compromise the quality of the internal space would appear more progressive.

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 4 of the SPD?

We think the document is well put together, not only with the illustrations and examples of acceptable (tick) and unacceptable (x), but with some very sound advice and advisory precautions included. one typo item 4.34 where not relay on should read not rely on. Page 45 illustration 4 (first bottom row) looks strange and we believe this should get a X