Appeal 3287503

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a 2-part rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/2335, dated 30 July 2021, 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 drawings: 082_EX_100 (Location & Site Plan); 082_PR_201 ([name]); 082_PR_300 (Section A Proposed); 082_PR_301 (Section B Proposed); 082_PR_109 (Lower Ground Floor Plan Proposed); and 082_PR_110 (Upper Ground Floor Plan Proposed).

Unless otherwise specified on the approved drawings, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

I have adapted the description of development to more accurately describe the proposal.

The proposal includes a part single-storey and part two-storey rear extension. As the Council’s reason for refusal only concerns the two-storey element of the proposal, the main issue will focus solely on this aspect of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] and Mapledene Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a three-storey, semi-detached dwelling, located on the southern side of [address]. Surrounding properties are primarily residential in nature, and consist of similar semi-detached dwellings. The appeal property itself is locally listed, and is also within the [address] and Mapdelene Conservation Area (CA).

The CA Character Appraisal1 (CACA) highlights that the quality of buildings along [address] is very mixed. Specifically, towards the western end of the road (where the appeal property is located), the CACA notes that the “quality is noticeably diluted in terms of the ‘special’ quality of the conservation area”. This was apparent during my site visit. Nonetheless, the appeal property and the closest neighbouring dwellings do benefit from attractive and coherent Georgian frontages, which share a consistent ridge height and established front building line. From my own observations, the significance of the appeal property, both in terms of its local listing and contribution to the CA, is primarily derived from these shared qualities.

In terms of the rear, whilst I acknowledge the appeal property does share some symmetry with its adjoining neighbour, this symmetry is already diluted by the prevalence of rear extensions in and around the appeal property. Such extensions, which are readily apparent along [address] itself, as well as [address] to the west and [address] to the south, are varied in design, size and scale and include several part single-storey, part two-storey extensions. As a result, there is no prevailing sense of uniformity or symmetry to the rear of these properties. This means the proposed extension could be accommodated without appearing discordant with neighbouring dwellings.

In terms of design, the rear elevation of the proposed two-storey element of the extension would be predominantly comprised of glass, achieving a modern design which is somewhat juxtaposed with the period style of the property. Nonetheless, the surrounding walls would be constructed of brick, which would be similar in style to those of the main dwelling. This would ensure that the contemporary components of the design would successfully integrate with the bulk of the property, without appearing incongruous. Moreover, as the proposal is solely limited to the rear of the property, it would not impact on its frontage, thereby ensuring its primary significance and contribution to the setting of the CA is preserved.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property nor of the surrounding area. As such, it would also preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The development is therefore consistent with policy LP1 of the Hackney Local Plan (adopted 2020) (Local Plan), which seeks to ensure new development achieves high quality design. This policy also supports innovative contemporary design where it respects the character of historic environment. The development would also be consistent with Policies LP3 and LP4 of the Local Plan, both of which seek to safeguard the special character of both designated and non-designated heritage assets within the Council’s borough. [address] and Mapledene Conservation Area, Conservation Area Appraisal

[name] acknowledge the proposal would lead to the loss of a period window to the rear of the property, I do not consider that its loss would harm its overriding character, nor its significance within the CA. Similarly, I do not consider that the internal staircase connecting the ground floor and basement levels contributes to the property’s significance. As such, the loss of these components would not warrant refusal.

I have included a standard plans condition for certainty over the development permitted. To ensure the development integrates properly with the host dwelling, I have also included a condition requiring the external materials to match those used in the existing property.

For the reasons given above, and having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed.