Appeal 3314421

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: APP/V5570/D/23/3314421

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in both appeals are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Barnsbury Conservation Area (CA); and, • the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of residents of [address], with particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/23/3314419, APP/V5570/D/23/3314421

[address] generally comprises 3 storey terraced town houses. However, the appeal site is within a row of several flat roofed mainly 2 storey houses located towards the end of the road. They share design characteristics with other houses within the street that contribute to the character and appearance and thus the significance of the CA. These include yellow stock brick walls, sash multipaned windows with brick arches above, and black painted iron railings along the front boundary. The appeal property is conspicuous because it sits lower than other houses with only one storey above street level.

The proposed extension would infill the first floor gap between the appeal property and its adjoining neighbours, although the roof would remain lower. It would have a brick frontage and appear flat roofed from the street, thus matching the appearance of neighbouring houses, but with a mansard roof to the rear. A Juliet balcony is proposed in front of 2 single paned glass doors facing the street. They would appear at odds with the 2 smaller sash windows on the ground floor of the appeal property, and the smaller first floor sash windows on other houses nearby. Whilst some houses have large first floor windows, they reflect the design of, and align with, similarly sized ground floor windows and provide an element of symmetry missing from the proposed development.

The neighbouring house has 2 wooden doors behind a Juliet balcony. However, they sit between 2 multipaned sash windows, which lends symmetry to the first floor, and the windows match the design of those on an adjoining house which would not be the case with the proposed development. Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would harm the appearance of the host property and be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

Given the small scale of the development within the context of the Conservation Area as a whole, it would not harm its character. There would however be harm in terms of its appearance. The harm would be localised, limited and less than substantial but would nevertheless be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) and Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), Policies CS8 and CS9 of [name] (2011) (CS) and Policies DM2.1 and DM2.3 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2013) (DMP) which require high quality design that responds to local character and conserves the significance of heritage assets.

Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires justification and, in accordance with paragraph 202 of the Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. Although no public benefits have been put forward by the appellant, there would be modest benefits arising from short term employment during its construction. However, such benefits would not outweigh the harm to the appearance of the building and the Barnsbury Conservation Area.

The rear walls of houses on [address] back directly on to the rear gardens of houses on [address], which is a terrace of three storey town Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/23/3314419, APP/V5570/D/23/3314421 houses with basements. The two roads are angled towards each other with the gap between them narrowing towards the nearby junction with [address] to the north. 10.I visited 158 to [address] which confirmed the observations of a previous Inspector, dealing with an appeal1 for a similar development at the site. The combination of high rear garden walls and shallow gardens restricts outlook and daylight from the gardens and windows of the houses. The appeal site provides a break in the roofscape because of its lower roof and rear wall compared to neighbouring houses, which enables views of the sky above it. Views of this gap are oblique and therefore limited from Nos 158 and 162 and virtually no sky is visible from their basements. No 160 is directly behind the appeal site and the extent of sky visible from its garden and windows is greater and the sense of enclosure is therefore less pronounced. Nonetheless, the gap that the appeal property provides at first floor level is important in providing some outlook and relief from the sense of enclosure that affects views from the gardens and ground floor windows of all three properties. 11.The proposed development would include lowering the parapet wall at the rear of the roof, which would allow a small amount of sky to be visible from the basement windows of Nos 158 to 162. However, the proposed mansard roof would be visible above the parapet and would infill the gap between roofs that I have identified as being important. It would therefore lead to an unacceptable increase in the sense of enclosure and loss of outlook from the gardens and ground floor windows of Nos 158 to 162, thus harming the living conditions of their occupants. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D3 of the LP and Policy DM2.1 of the DMP which require development proposals to provide a good level of amenity regarding a sense of enclosure and outlook.