Appeal 6005313

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed rear dormer to main roof and second floor extension over rear outrigger. at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: P2025/3114/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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 drawing nos: [name].12 (Plans as proposed), [name].13 (Section and rear elevation as proposed), [name].15 (Elevations as proposed).

The development shall be constructed in accordance with the schedule of materials noted on the approved plans and within the [name] and [name]. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved.

The description of development identified above was amended from that set out on the planning application form during the validation of the application. This change was notified to the appellant at the time. I have used this description of development, as it more accurately describes the proposed development.

As this is an appeal against the non-determination of the application, there is no decision notice. The Council’s submission sets out that it would have refused the application for reasons relating to the character of the area and the living conditions of nearby residents, due to overshadowing and a sense of enclosure.

The Council has indicated that there is an outstanding enforcement case relating to the property. This concerns the alleged use of the premises as short-term lets and/or self-contained dwellings. It is not my role, in determining this appeal, to address this matter.

In this context, the Council has also highlighted discrepancies within the application plans relating to the internal layout of the building. During my site visit, I was able to confirm that there are discrepancies between the submitted drawings and the actual internal layout of the premises.

The appellant has indicated that these differences are associated with the conversion of the premises to a small House in [name] (HMO) and, as noted, this is not a matter before me for determination. The external appearance of the building is not altered by any internal works that may have been undertaken. I am also satisfied that, with regard to the impacts of the works before me in this appeal, there would be no difference in the potential effects on the living conditions of surrounding occupiers in terms of overshadowing and sense of enclosure. In these circumstances, I have determined the application based on the drawings submitted.

In light of these considerations, the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to overshadowing and sense of enclosure.

The Council has not identified any harm arising from the proposed dormer extension, and it is therefore considered acceptable. Accordingly, consideration of the main issue is confined to the proposed outrigger extension.

Rear outrigger extensions are a common feature along this terrace and contribute to its visual rhythm. These are generally two storeys in height, and this established form is repeated throughout the terrace. Some extend slightly beyond this height as a result of additions to accommodate terraces and other features. There is one notably taller outrigger extension at No. [address], which rises to the equivalent of three storeys. Whilst the Council has indicated that there is no planning history associated with this extension, and indeed other smaller increases in height at other outriggers, I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that they should be omitted from my assessment of the character of the rear of the terrace. I have therefore based my assessment on the situation as it exists.

The proposal would introduce an additional storey above the existing two-storey outrigger. This would result in a flat roof that sits approximately one storey below the parapet level of the main building and would be broadly consistent in height with the aforementioned outrigger at No. [address].

The Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2017) states that rear extensions should be subordinate to the original building, advising that they should be no higher than one full storey below the eaves to ensure sufficient subordination. In relation to upper-floor extensions, the SPD notes that many terraces have paired additions with consistent rooflines, and that new extensions above these rear projections can disrupt the established rhythm of rear elevations and should therefore be avoided. It further advises that, where rear elevations display a consistent arrangement, extensions above existing rear projections will normally be resisted.

In this case, the proposed extension would result in an outrigger that remains no higher than one full storey below the eaves. Furthermore, the otherwise consistent rhythm of the rear of the terrace has already been punctuated by other outriggers, including at No. [address]. The proposal would also be lower in height than the more recent development directly abutting and extending the eastern end of the terrace, which includes a flat roof at parapet level. It does not form part of a clearly defined paired addition due to differing use of materials and finishes. In this context, the proposal is considered to accord with the guidance set out in the SPD.

For these reasons, the proposed development complies with Policy PLAN1 of the Islington Local Plan: Strategic and Development Management Policies (2023) (the Local Plan) and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), which, amongst other things, require development to achieve high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to local character, legibility, and distinctiveness, having regard to an up-to-date understanding and evaluation of the defining characteristics of the area.

I find no substantive evidence to indicate conflict with Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021), which requires inclusive design. The proposal would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to secure good design that functions well and adds to the overall quality of the area.

The potential for harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants has been carefully considered, with particular regard to loss of daylight and overbearing effects. This assessment focuses primarily on No. [address], as this property is most directly affected by the proposed development.

Particular attention is drawn to a rear-facing window serving a stairwell at half-landing level between the ground and first floors. Whilst this serves a circulation space rather than a primary habitable room, it nonetheless provides a source of natural light to the interior. The proposed extension would inevitably result in some reduction in the level of daylight received by this window due to its increased height and proximity.

The Council has referred to the 25° and 45° tests set out in the BRE Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight guidance. In this instance, the 25° test is of limited relevance, as there are no directly opposing structures that would give rise to harm when assessed against this metric. In respect of the 45° test, it is possible that the proposal would infringe the guideline when measured from the centre of the affected window. Whilst this may be the case, I have not been directed to any policy requirement that mandates further assessment where one of these guidelines is not met.

In assessing the effects in this case, regard has been had to the specific context of the site. This includes the relatively modest scale of the extension when viewed against the host building, the south-facing orientation of the window, which would continue to allow good levels of daylight penetration, and the fact that the affected window serves a secondary space rather than a principal habitable room. Taking these factors together, whilst some loss of daylight would occur, this would not be so significant as to materially harm the living conditions of the occupants.

In terms of outlook, the extension would introduce a greater sense of enclosure when viewed from this window. However, the relationship between rear outriggers within the terrace is typically tight, and a degree of enclosure is characteristic of such environments. Moreover, development to the rear is generally of limited height, meaning that longer-distance views, including towards the city centre, would largely be retained. Given this context and noting that the proposal would be broadly comparable in height to the extended outrigger at No. [address], the resulting impact would not be unduly overbearing.

For these reasons, the proposed development complies with Policy PLAN1 of the Islington Local Plan: Strategic and Development Management Policies (2023), which, amongst other things, requires development to achieve a good standard of amenity, including in relation to overshadowing and sense of enclosure. I find no substantive evidence to indicate conflict with the SPD in respect of living conditions, nor with Policies D4 or D5 of the London Plan (2021). The proposal would also be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The site is located outside, but in close proximity to, both the [name] and Aberdeen Park Conservation Areas (CAs), where there is a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing their character and appearance. The proposed development would be small in scale, with limited visibility from the CAs, and the design and materials, secured by planning condition, would closely reflect those of the host property. As such, the proposal would have a neutral impact on the significance of the conservation areas and would preserve their character and appearance.

Matters relating to waste management and fire safety have been raised by interested parties. Whilst the proposal would result in an increase in floor area within the building, I have not been presented with evidence indicating that this would have a direct impact on the suitability of waste management provision at the premises. Likewise, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would have a direct impact on fire safety. It is likely that these concerns primarily relate to the alleged use of the premises for short-term letting or as self-contained dwellings. However, as noted, it is not my role in determining this appeal to address such matters. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm in respect of either waste management or fire safety.

I have considered the conditions proposed by the Council against the tests set out in the Framework. Where necessary, I have amended their wording in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. The appellant has had the opportunity to review and comment on the Council’s suggested conditions, which were included in the Council’s Statement of Case.

In the interests of certainty, I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and adherence to the approved plans.

To maintain the character and appearance of the area, I have revised the Council’s proposed Condition 2 and imposed a revised Condition 3, which makes specific reference to the details of the development contained within the [name] and [name].

I have found that the proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area and would comply with the relevant Local Plan policies in that regard. I attach significant weight to this consideration. The development would also satisfactorily address the requirements of the Local Plan in relation to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

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

For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I allow the appeal.