Appeal 3282359

The appeal is dismissed

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation area, and the locally listed appeal property.

The site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (ASCA), Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

I saw at the site visit that the ASCA derives significance as a heritage asset from the architectural and historic quality of some of the buildings in the area. Of particular importance are the wide boulevard style streets and a strong visual effect of early-mid 19th century terraced houses whose repetitive nature give the streets a distinctive identity.

The Council’s report details various dimensions of the proposed roof extension and measurements in respect of its relationship with the existing building and concern is raised that the insertion of the proposed roof extension would result in the loss of “the largely unbroken roofline”.

I saw at the site visit that there are examples within the local area of other roof extensions, many that are not dissimilar to that proposed here. [address] I saw that there are some roof extensions and alterations, without a prevailing design. However, there are no notable roof alterations on the short section of terraced properties that includes the appeal property and terminates at the [address], which forms a bridge over the access to [address]., with the exception of the small roof extension on that property and is differentiated from the remainder of the small terrace by its unique design.

It is not at dispute between the parties that the appeal scheme will not be visible from the street to the front of the appeal property and based on my observations on site I agree. To the rear, the appeal scheme would be subject of some limited views from [address] and private gardens.

Guidance set out in Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) clearly recognises the importance of roofs within a Conservation Area and states “proposals for roof extensions anywhere along an unaltered rooflines within a conservation area will not generally be acceptable”.

As such, the appeal scheme would introduce an extension shown on the submitted plans of being of significant bulk into an otherwise unaltered roofline, thus resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation area, and the locally listed appeal property, contrary to the detailed guidance set out in the SPD.

In relation to the test concerning the level of harm as it applies to designated heritage assets under the National Planning Policy Framework, based on the reasons I have set out above, ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the conservation area would arise. There are no public benefits that have been put to me that would outweigh this harm.

As such, the appeal scheme is contrary to Policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan; Policies CS8 and CS9 of [name]; Policies DM2.1 and DM2.3 of Islington's Development Management Policies; and the guidance contained within the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document that amongst other matters seek to maintain the design quality of new development, protecting the heritage and character of the area including Conservation Areas.

The appellant details that [address] is a private road and I saw a small sign confirming this at the site visit. Nonetheless the appeal scheme would be visible from private and what might be described as communal spaces, if not public spaces. It is my planning judgement that this does not sufficiently mitigate the harm that would result from the appeal scheme, such that the appeal scheme would be acceptable.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.