Appeal 6002844

The appeal is dismissed.

Part of the development has already been carried out, and the appeal is therefore part‐retrospective. For clarity, and in the interests of accuracy, I have used the description of development as set out in the Council’s decision notice, as this better reflects the nature and scope of the works that are the subject of the appeal. I have considered the appeal on this basis and with reference to the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the significance of the De Beauvoir Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the De Beauvoir Conservation Area and occupies an open corner position at the junction of [address], [address] and [address]. The Conservation Area Appraisal explains that the character and appearance of the area are strongly influenced by its pattern of junctions, wide streets and corner buildings, which are experienced from multiple directions in public views. As such, buildings on prominent corner sites make a particular contribution to townscape character and are more sensitive to alterations.

Owing to this prominent siting, the building is viewed from multiple public vantage points, including both direct and oblique views from the surrounding streets, rather than as part of a single continuous frontage. As a result, alterations to the building are perceived more readily than would be the case for a property seen primarily within a linear streetscape.

At roof level, the flat roof itself sits behind a parapet. However, the railings project above that parapet and are visible in longer and angled views when approaching and moving through the junction. Given the openness of the site, this feature is appreciable from the public realm and introduces additional visual complexity at roof level, resulting in a degree of visual clutter that alters the way the roof will be read within the street scene.

The Conservation Area Appraisal notes that [address] does not display the same level of coherence as some other roads within the Conservation Area. However, it remains part of a designated heritage asset, and the absence of uniformity is not a justification for incremental harm. In this context, and based on my observations on site, alterations at roof level on prominent corner buildings are more readily perceived and features projecting above parapet level have a greater potential to affect how a building is read within the wider townscape.

The replacement of the first‐floor front window with a door reinforces this effect. Although similar in size to the former opening, the door is read differently in elevation and signals access to an external roof space. This alters the composition and hierarchy of the façade and, when seen together with the railings, emphasises the roof as an active terrace rather than as a recessive element of the building.

The retained flat roof, projecting balustrade and altered opening produce a cumulative visual effect that is uncharacteristic of the Conservation Area and appreciable from a number of public vantage points. This harm arises from the introduction of roof‐level clutter and enclosure on a prominent junction building, which disrupts the calm and contained roofscape when viewed from the surrounding streets. The proposal therefore fails to preserve the character and appearance of the De Beauvoir Conservation Area.

The proposal therefore conflicts with London Plan Policy HC1 (Heritage conservation and growth), adopted March 2021, which requires development proposals affecting heritage assets and their settings to conserve their significance, be sympathetic to their appreciation within their surroundings, and actively manage the cumulative impacts of change. It also conflicts with Hackney Local Plan Policy LP3 (Designated Heritage Assets), adopted July 2020, which permits development affecting Conservation Areas only where it preserves or enhances their character and appearance. For the reasons set out above, the proposal fails to meet these requirements.

In reaching this conclusion, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Although the proposal provides private outdoor amenity space for occupiers, this benefit does not outweigh the harm identified. The appeal therefore fails.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.