Appeal 6004594

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear extensions at both properties at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2596, subject to the following conditions:

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

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 3091_055 and 3091_100A.

No development above ground floor slab level of each of the extensions hereby permitted shall commence until a scheme for the management of surface water drainage resulting from that extension has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include incorporation of sustainable drainage systems and a programme of implementation. The measures in that scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

Full details of a scheme for the location of two bat boxes and two bird boxes and a programme of implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the first use of the extensions. The bat and bird boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and programme, and retained on the site thereafter.

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 the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwellings, terrace and the area.

The terraced properties of [address] are of simple form and feature consistent materials and overarching design. There are several examples of extensions in the Square and properties vary in their height and roof design, establishing elements of variation within the development. With the terraced rows arranged in a square formation, Nos 8 and 9 share a context that is relatively unusual within the area. Located at the end of the terrace, these properties are dwarfed by the substantial scale of the adjacent multistorey residential block.

The design of the proposed extensions would be largely consistent with other properties in terms of their materials. Although both extensions would have an eaves height partly matching those of the existing buildings, subordination would be achieved through the lower roof ridgelines and the portion of flat roof between the gable features. For these reasons, the design of the proposed extensions would fit into the simple yet somewhat varied character of the area.

The width of the proposed extension at No 8 would exceed half the width of the existing dwelling, contrary to the guidance provided in the Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and Alterations (December 2025) (the SPD). However, this must be considered in the context of No 8 and its surroundings.

The proposed rear extension would only be visible from a small section of [address] due to the screening provided by existing buildings. It would be seen in the context of the substantial bulk of the multistorey residential block rather than the terrace as a whole and would be smaller than the modest sized host dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed extension would occupy the space occupied by the existing timber extension and rear yard, with the additional side garden space afforded by the property’s end of terrace location left unaffected. For these reasons, the width of the proposed extension at No 8 would not be appreciated publicly. Therefore, it would not appear overtly large or obtrusive and is acceptable within this context.

The proposed extension to No 9 would be largely screened by the neighbouring buildings and the extension to No 8. Even if the extension to No 8 were not built, the modest depth and height of the extension to No 8 would mean it would appear subordinate to, and in keeping with, the host dwelling.

Overall, therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, terrace or the area. It would therefore accord with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (adopted 2021) and Policies LP1 and LP17 of the Hackney Local Plan (adopted 2020) which require development to be of a high quality.

Whilst the proposal does not accord with one element of the SPD guidance, it achieves its overall design principles in relation to being subordinate, not compromising the amenity space and complementing the existing building. For the reasons above, in the particular context of this site, the non-conforming width does not result in harm.

[name] recognise the appellant’s concerns in relation to the conduct of the local planning authority during the application stage, this falls outside of my remit in the determination of this appeal.

I recommend conditions for commencement and for development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interest of providing certainty. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the conditions suggested by the local planning authority to ensure they meet the relevant tests.

I recommend a condition requiring the use of matching materials to those of the existing dwellings to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is preserved.

In line with Policy LP53 of the Hackney Local Plan and Policy SI 12 of the London Plan, the development should decrease vulnerability to flooding and ensure that flood risk is minimised and mitigated. [name] accordingly recommend a condition requiring on-site mitigation, on account of the small scale of the development, I have amended the wording of the condition suggested by the local planning authority to ensure that it is proportionate and reasonable.

In line with Policy LP47 of the Hackney Local Plan and Policy G6 of the London Plan, the appellant has set out their intention to deliver two new bird boxes and two new bat boxes as part of the proposal. I recommend a condition securing this in order to take opportunities to enhance biodiversity.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.