Appeal 6002357

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

[site address] [site address] is a mid terraced, three storey dwelling located in the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of the CA derives from being a historic route connecting [address] and Homerton since the mid-15th century. Since the 19th century the area has been a centre for commercial and light industries maintaining a village-like character. With terraces of 19th century housing and shops surrounding either side of [address] with further terraces on the adjoining side streets. The Council’s Well Street Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAA) identifies [site address] as making a positive contribution to the CA with the approaches into the CA via [site address] identified as key views.

The appeal dwelling is part of a wider terrace of three storey buildings with projecting front bays and a strong, unbroken parapet. The terrace possesses a uniform appearance due to their unbroken roofline with butterfly roof forms obscured by a parapet fronting the street and their evenly proportioned upper floor windows of traditional timber construction. The consistency of the architecture gives the terrace a pleasing cohesive appearance with the CAA identifying the terraced block as making a positive contribution to the CA.

The appellant contends that the proposal would not be visible in the street scene. From my own observations on the street, chimneys are the only noticeable structures protruding above the parapet roofline to the terrace with the main roof form generally screened unless viewing the appeal site from the rear.

As the mansard form of the extension would extend very close to the front parapet and would be a similar height as the chimneys, it would be a bulky addition that would appear significantly at odds with the otherwise lower profile of the roof of the wider terrace. This would likely be very noticeable in wider views from either side of [site address] and particularly the junctions at [address], [address] and [address] as well as private views with no detailed evidence before me to demonstrate otherwise. In these views, the roof lights would be particularly prominent, and their horizontal emphasis would not harmonise well with the vertical emphasis of the window arrangements to the front. The proposal would therefore be an incongruous addition to the building, detracting from the consistency of the terrace and the positive contribution that it makes to the CA.

I accept that the roof alterations would accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and Alterations (2009) (the SPD) in terms of the use of a flat top mansard roof and would retain the butterfly roof form to the rear. However, its siting would conflict with SPD guidance, as the proposal would break the unbroken roof line of discrete butterfly roofs set behind parapets. Consequently, the proposal would not respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

I have considered the approved roof extension1 referenced by the appellant in their design and access statement at [address]. However, this example is on a different street outside of the CA boundary and I am mindful that each development must be assessed on its own individual merits. In any case it does not relate to the terrace that the appeal site sits within which, for the reasons described, has a uniform appearance that adds to the significance of the CA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Drawing the above together, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the CA. As a result, the expectations of the Act have not been met and the proposal would harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. In this instance, as the harm would be confined to one part of the building within the CA the extent of harm would be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the spectrum but, nevertheless, of great weight.

In accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the framework), less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In this regard, the proposal would provide additional living space for the appellant’s family. The appellant also suggests this would support their aspiration to continue to live in the borough however these are not public benefits as such. 1 2008/1043

The site-specific considerations put forward are personal benefits and are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified and the great weight I apply to the CA’s conservation in line with the Framework.

In this regard, the proposal would conflict with the Act, the Framework and policies LP1, LP3 and LP17 of the Hackney Local Plan (2020) and policies D3, D4 and HC1 of The London Plan (2021) when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These seek, amongst other things, for development proposals to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area including, the established local character of individual buildings (in terms of height, massing, scale, form, design, materials, detailing and use) and the rhythms and historical form of the area.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently compelling to find otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.