Appeal 6002884

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of front boundary with new brick wall with railings above and new gates, alterations to front bay, alterations to existing side extension, erection of a full width ground floor rear extension and partial width first and second floor extension to the rear, replacement fenestration and new bin store, at [site address] , Islington, London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P2025/2916/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Block Plan – 319_33_00 Proposed Site Plan – 319_33_01 Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan – 319_33_09 Proposed Ground Floor Plan – 319_33_10 Proposed First Floor Plan – 319_33_11 Proposed Second Floor Plan – 319_33_12 Proposed Loft Floor Plan – 319_33_13 [name] – 319_33_14 Proposed Section 20 – 319_33_20 Proposed Section 21 – 319_33_21 [name] – 319_33_30 [name] – 319_33_31 [name] – 319_33_40 [name]

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to the siting, scale and form of the first and second-floor rear extension.

The appeal site is an end‐terrace house at the junction of [address] and [address]. Although the development includes alterations to the front of the property, the issues in dispute are confined to parts of the development located entirely to the rear. Whilst they would be visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties and from the grounds of institutional buildings to the rear, they would not be visible from public vantage points.

Nos 5 and [address] each have two‐storey rear extensions. Although these extensions are lower than the proposed development, they collectively establish that the rear elevation of the short [address] terrace has already been extended in a manner that departs from its original built form. As a result, the rear of the terrace does not present a uniform or unaltered appearance.

Whilst the submitted drawings include details of the adjoining property at No [address], they did not fully reflect my observations at my visit, which indicate that No 7 now benefits from a recently constructed two-storey rear extension. Although this does not alter the appeal proposal itself, it highlights that the rear context is evolving and reduces the degree to which the character of the terrace is defined by the original rear arrangement.

Beyond the [address] terrace, properties on [address] form part of a longer terrace but remain visually and spatially related, sharing similar architectural detailing and rear garden environments.

In particular, No [address] has a partial‐width rear extension extending to an upper floor which sits below the eaves line. Although it appears to retain a slightly greater separation from the eaves than the appeal proposal, it is of broadly comparable width and depth and presents a similar form when viewed from the rear garden context. Whilst the other cited extension at No [address] had not been constructed at the time of my visit, the approved scheme exhibits similar characteristics to the appeal proposal in terms of footprint, massing and relationship to the host building. Notwithstanding the larger eaves separation, both [address] extensions occupy a proportionately similar width relative to their host dwellings, being greater than half-width, and are comparable to the appeal proposal in that regard.

Policy PLAN1 of the Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies, September 2023 (the LP) seeks high‐quality design that responds positively to context and contributes to local character. The Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, January 2017 (the SPD) advises that upper‐floor rear extensions should be subordinate to the host building, being no more than half-width and normally no higher than one full storey below the eaves. However, the guidance also allows for exceptions where no harm would be caused.

Accordingly, the assessment of acceptability is one of planning judgement rather than compliance with a fixed standard. In this case, whilst the proposed extension would neither retain a separation of a full storey below the eaves nor remain within a strict half-width, comparable upper‐floor rear extensions exist or have been approved nearby, demonstrating that the rear context has evolved.

In these circumstances, taking account of the proposal’s partial width form in practical terms, the use of matching materials, and limited visibility, I am not persuaded that the development would appear as an unduly dominant or top‐heavy addition to the dwelling. When viewed within the varied rear garden context, which includes two‐storey and upper‐floor extensions of varied width, depth and height, the proposal would not appear discordant or cause harm to the character or appearance of the host building or surrounding area. It would therefore accord with the general objectives of the guidance and the development plan.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed first and second-floor rear extension would be appropriate in terms of its siting, scale and form. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area, and it would accord with LP Policy PLAN1 and the provisions of the SPD, the aims of which have previously been set out. It would also accord with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which have similar aims.

Conditions requiring the development to commence within the statutory time limit and to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty and ensure compliance with the development plan. A condition requiring the external materials to match those of the existing building is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan, and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions listed in my formal decision.