Appeal 3316647

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above I have used the description of the proposal given on the application form omitting the words “This application seeks permission” as these are not a description of development.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the De Beauvoir Conservation Area (CA).

The terrace comprises pairs of similarly designed 3 storey houses, such as the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour, with two storey flat or shallow pitched roofed properties in between them. Common design features that contribute to the character and appearance of pairs of houses include moulded stucco window and door surrounds, partially visible basements, steps up to front doors with metal railings to the side, and front gardens with low boundary walls and metal railings. Behind the houses there is a mix of residential and commercial units that appear to have filled in part of what would have originally been their back gardens. Consequently, gardens are small and, along with the rear ground floor of houses, are generally only visible from the rear of neighbouring properties. Nonetheless, the rear of the appeal property and houses further along the terrace towards [address] appear to be relatively unaltered and therefore contribute to some extent to the appearance of the CA.

The proposed development would extend the full length of the garden up to the rear garden wall and exceed the maximum depth for a single storey rear extension set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and Alterations (2009) (SPD). Although the 2 storey neighbouring property, No 66a, extends the full length of the garden boundary, the proposed development would appear at odds with its adjoining 3 storey neighbour, No 64, and that of similar pairs of houses further along the road.

Furthermore, although more than 50% of the garden would be retained, the SPD notes that this is a minimum requirement, and an acceptable depth will depend on the size of the house and garden. As the existing garden is relatively small, and along with others in the terrace appears to have been reduced in the past, I consider this further encroachment excessive. As a result, the proposed extension would dominate the rear garden and be out of character with the pattern of development of similar houses described above.

The proposed terrace on the extension roof would effectively replace that part of the garden that would be lost to the development. However, roof terraces are not a feature in the surrounding area, and it would therefore be out of character. In particular, the wooden balustrade screen, necessary to ensure mutual privacy between neighbours and the appellant, would be an incongruous addition at first floor level and visible from some neighbouring gardens and the rear of properties nearby. I therefore conclude that despite the relatively enclosed nature of the site, the proposed development would be overly dominant and out of keeping with, and thus harm the appearance of, the host property and surrounding area and that of the CA.

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 Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020) and the SPD which seek high quality development which preserves or enhances the significance of the historic environment.

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 De Beauvoir Conservation Area.

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