Appeal 3277907

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a rear roof extension with rooflights to the rear and front at [site address] , [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/1043, dated 2 April 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the end of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: AL05 Proposed Block Plan, AL20 [name] and [name], AL21 Proposed 2nd, Loft and [name], AL25 [name]+BB, AL26 [name]+DD, Rear + [name].

All new external work shall be carried out in materials that resemble, as closely as possible, in colour and texture those of the existing building, unless otherwise specified in the approved application.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and whether it preserves or enhances the Victoria Park Conservation Area (CA) in which it is located.

No. [site address] is a two-storey terraced property located within the CA. The significance of the CA, in so far as it relates to the appeal, is derived from the two-storey brick-faced dwellings rich in architectural detail with the front facades having a strong sense of architectural rhythm imparted by the two storey half-hexagonal, bay window with a pitched, slate roof running back into the front plane of the main house; party walls and regular structural openings. Small front gardens behind low brick boundary walls and street trees complement the open nature of [site address] contributing to the verdant and attractive character of this part of the CA and also the wider CA.

To the rear, No. [site address] sits within a perimeter block and as such its rear elevation is not readily visible from the public realm. Whilst it is visible from the rear of neighbouring properties and gardens, given the mature vegetation throughout the area, visibility is likely to be restricted from some areas. Despite the rhythm of the paired three-storey rear outriggers in this section of [site address] , due to the incremental changes to the rear roof slopes and elevations of a number of these properties, the architectural coherence, which can be seen at the front, is not as apparent at the rear.

The proposal, which seeks at the rear a full width dormer style extension, is similar to existing development at the adjoining neighbouring property No. 34. This existing full width dormer, the Council note, occurred prior to the adoption of the 2009 [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Full width dormers are also present at No. 29 and No. 30, but there is no record that these have planning consent.

As a result of these existing full width rear dormers the original character and appearance of this section of rear roofscape has changed. Having said that, it is not uncommon for more significant alterations to take place in the private space to the rear of terraced properties and, due to the sense of enclosure at the rear of the block, the changes that have occurred have not unduly caused harm to the wider character or appearance of the area.

Given the proposal’s design, form, and materials it would not detract from the existing character of the appeal property or that of the neighbouring roofscapes in which it would be seen in context with. It would sit between the distinctive party walls and would not appear, when viewed from the rear properties or gardens of overlooking neighbours, overly prominent or incongruous.

I note that the proposal does not comply with the technical requirements as set out in the SPD. However, the SPD sets out guidance only and not fixed policy and the proposal would be of a high-quality design, would not exceed beyond the existing eaves or ridge and would, as a result of it siting between the party walls, remain proportionate to the existing roof, notwithstanding its width. Moreover, it would be of a similar design, scale and form of the existing neighbouring development upon this part of the rear roofscape and would reinstate a degree of symmetry in the pair of dwellings, an effect that would not be achieved if the dormer was set in from the side of the party walls. Therefore, whilst the proposal does not comply with the specific technical guidance, as set out in the SPD, it would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the appeal property, neighbouring properties or the surrounding area.

Where existing front roof lights appear along [site address] , they appear limited to two. However, one of the three proposed would be set back from the prominent roof formation of the half-hexagonal bay window at second floor, thereby limiting its visibility from street views. Having regard to this, in combination, the rooflights would not appear cluttered, nor would they visually dominate the roof plane on account of their overall scale and form. Moreover, they would not detract from the architectural features of the property or that of the wider area.

Having regard to the above, I find the proposals would be acceptable and the effect of the proposed development on the appeal property and this part of the CA, and the CA taken as a whole, would be a neutral one and the prevailing character of the CA of attractive, suburban dwellings would be preserved.

The proposal therefore complies with Local Plan Policies LP1 and LP3 of the [address] for Everyone, Hackney Local Plan 2033, Strategic Planning (2020) (HLP), and London Plan (2021) (LP) Policies HC1 and D3 which collectively seek to ensure that all new development is of the highest architectural and urban design quality, responds to local context and be compatible with existing townscape including urban grain. Despite the technical breach of the SPD’s guidance, I am satisfied that there would be no conflict with the aims and provisions of the above-mentioned policies.

In conclusion, I find that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and as such would preserve the significance of the CA, as it relates to the appeal site, and as a whole.

I have imposed the standard time limit condition and have specified the approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition is necessary for the materials to match those that are used in the existing property to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall allow the appeal subject to the conditions set out.