Appeal 3327503

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property, the wider terrace and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey, mid terrace dwelling that forms part of a large, planned estate which has a consistent and uniform built form and character. It adjoins other dwellings on three sides and forms part of a small inner courtyard of buildings accessed via an entrance from Hargrave Park. It adjoins a courtyard of a similar design, known as [address]. The internal courtyard terraces are of a consistent design and are lower in height and visually subservient to the outer terraces along Hargrave Park and [address].

The appeal property has been the subject of several previous planning applications as well as applications for prior approval works. Of particular relevance is an application for prior approval in 20211 for an additional storey above the dwellinghouse which was refused by the Council and dismissed on appeal. Following that appeal decision, the proposal has subsequently evolved further, with the overall height and scale of the extension significantly reduced.

The proposed roof extension would be constructed with slate tiles to match the existing roof materials. It would involve an altered roof arrangement and a modest increase in the height of the roof. In my view, the roof extension would 1 P2021/2861/PRA be of a bulky, box-like appearance which would detract from the uniformity created by the consistent scale and form of the courtyard dwellings and the low profile of the existing roofscape.

I find that the roof addition would be particularly apparent when approaching [address] from Hargrave Park and when viewed from the small internal courtyard where it would appear as a visually dominant, imposing and incongruous addition to the existing dwelling and would detract from the wider roofscape of the terrace. The increase in height and the introduction of fenestration at roof level would also disrupt the unity of the terrace when viewed from the adjacent terraces to the rear.

Whilst wider views of the proposal would not be readily obtainable due to the higher buildings along the adjacent road frontages, this does not lessen my concern regarding the overall effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the cohesiveness and planned appearance of the wider terrace and the immediate area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the wider terrace and the surrounding area. Thus, it would be contrary to Policy CS8 of [name] (2011), Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2013) and the [name] Planning Document (2017). Collectively these policies and guidance require (amongst other matters) development to be of a high quality and to make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of an area.

I acknowledge the absence of local objections to the proposed development. However, this is not a determining factor as I have determined the appeal on its merits and have found that it would result in visual harm.

I also acknowledge that the proposed extension would provide additional accommodation for the appellant and his family. [name] acknowledge the personal benefit this may represent, this is a matter which I afford limited weight.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.