Appeal 3304212

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of roof extension to existing two storey outrigger at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/3313, dated 26 October 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of the permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: AL(01)01; AL(01)02; AL(01)03; AL(01)04; AL(01)05; AL(01)06; AL(01)07; AL(01)08; AL(01)09; AL(01)10; AL(03)01; AL(03)02; AL(03)03; AL(03)04; AL(03)05; AL(10)01; AL(10)02; AL(10)03; AL(15)01; AL(10)02.

The Council altered the description of the development from ‘proposed roof extension over the existing outrigger with a pitched roof’ to ‘construction of roof extension to existing two storey outrigger.’ This is also the description used by the appellant on the appeal form. I consider this to be a more accurate description of the appeal proposal and I have therefore used this in my decision above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of a Victorian era terrace of properties which are characterised by the architectural rhythm of their twin pitched rear outriggers. Although not an overly common feature, flat and sloping roof extensions above these outriggers are nevertheless found within the terrace and are of multifarious design, scale and depth.

The Council’s ‘[name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2009’ (SPD) supports extensions that reflect the design of the original building without disrupting the existing roof form, and that are of a scale proportionate to the existing roof. Although there are smaller outrigger extensions in the terrace, the proposal would maintain a sloping roof form and would not extend over the majority of the existing, historic roof plane. The proposal would be set well below the existing eaves, and would be of a modest height and depth, similar to that of the nearby extension at No 58. For these reasons, the extension would preserve the legibility of the outrigger and would not appear obtrusive or incompatible with the terrace which would accord with the SPD.

The proposed use of natural slate would soften the overall appearance of the extension and this durable high-quality material would complement the local Victorian architecture. Furthermore, the extension would be primarily seen from private rear gardens and within the context of other similar extensions. Consequently, the proposal would not appear overly prominent and as a result, would not harmfully affect the quality of the local street scene.

Therefore, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy LP1 of the Hackney Local Plan 2020, Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and the Council’s SPD, which together in this respect seek to promote developments that respond to local character and that are compatible with the existing townscape.

Whilst other extensions may have been constructed through the exercising of permitted development rights, this has little bearing on the merits of the proposal before me.

I am attaching the standard implementation condition, and in the interests of certainty a condition to define the plans with which the scheme should accord.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.