Appeal 3270227

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a roof extension to rear section of pitched roof at [site address] , Hackney, London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of application, Ref. 2020/3855, dated 4 November 2020, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]. 5327 00_001 P2 (Site and Block Plan) [name]. 5327 00_100 P2 ([name]) [name]. 5327 00_200 P2 ([name]) [name]. 5327 00_300 P2 ([name])

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the roof extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed roof extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

The appeal relates to a traditional mid terraced property with a two storey rear outrigger which is shared with the attached property, No. [address]. The proposal seeks to add a mansard extension above the existing outrigger.

The Council asserts that the addition of the proposed mansard extension would project above the point of the original eaves of the butterfly roof of the host dwelling, disrupting the subordinate appearance of the outrigger and failing to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. To this end, the Council points to the fact that its adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled ‘[name] and Alterations’ (SPD) explains that roof extensions are acceptable in principle, provided they do not disrupt the existing roof form, including eaves and ridges.

Nevertheless, a large mansard has already been added to the main body of the host dwelling which has altered the original butterfly roof considerably. Furthermore, highly material to this appeal is the fact that a very similar extension has been added to the attached outrigger of the adjacent dwelling, No. [address], which the appellant has explained was permitted in 2019. The proposed extension would be very similar in terms of its scale and form and would have the positive effect of balancing this shared outrigger.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed roof extension would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. In such terms, and in this particular case, I find no conflict with the overall aims of policy D4 of the London Plan, policy LP1 of the adopted Hackney Local Plan or the SDP which collectively promote high quality design that respects local character and context.

In addition to the standard conditions which limit the lifespan of the planning permission and direct that the development takes place in accordance with the approved plans, the Council has suggested one other condition in the event the appeal succeeds. I agree that the external materials of the mansard extension should match those of the existing dwelling in order to ensure a visually acceptable development. In allowing the appeal, I shall impose these