Appeal 6005637

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 appellant has advised on negotiations with the Council and alternative courses of action and have compared the appeal scheme with such recommendations. However, it is important to note that the appeal process is not a way of amending and altering an appeal scheme. It is to be assessed on the plans considered by the Council and no others. The plans shown on the decision notice differ from the ones considered, however this has been clarified by both parties as to which plans were assessed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the [address] and Mapledene Conservation Area (CA); and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No 76) with specific regard to outlook and light.

The appeal building forms part of and is central to a group of terraced dwellings. It is relatively unaltered with no relevant planning history. Resultantly, it retains its original features such as the traditional rear outrigger. Surrounding dwellings on this side of the road are similar in their design due to their terraced nature. The overriding feature of this and the wider area is its uniformity of proportion, scale and style of built fabric with a homogeneity in the dwellings with particular regard to the repeating outriggers. Therefore, the significance of the dwelling derives from its collection as a group of terraces. Notwithstanding it is not statutorily or locally listed. Where dwellings have been extended, they have been so in manner where it respects the outriggers. These features described together add to a strong character and consistency which contributes positively to the historical and architectural significance of the set of dwellings and by association the CA.

The proposed rear extension is to sit between the existing outrigger and the boundary of No 76. It is to be partially two storey and partially single storey serving the existing basement in a stepped box form. The siting of the extension sitting in the intentionally open gap whilst not uncommon, in this case would be obtrusive and large. Whilst it would have a stepped approach, the overriding height and presence of the blocky elements would be overtly modern and detract from the pleasant and original rear façade and the outrigger. Moreover, it would not be seen as being subordinate and would partially shroud the original outrigger element.

The modern feel of the proposal in of itself would not harm the dwelling, however its contribution to the wider dwellings would harm the area by detracting from the architectural traditionality of the outrigger. Additionally, it would erode the relationship between the legibility of the repeating outriggers between the pairs of dwellings by virtue of the increased height which are important to the integrity of the building’s history. It would be seen as a dominant feature detracting from the pleasant originality experienced. Generally, box form flat roof extensions are at a single storey level and do not impede on the importance of the outrigger. Whilst it would be to the rear of the building, this does not disregard the impact it has on the overall character and appearance of the area and resultantly the CA.

No [address] is more traditional in its form and siting and in keeping with the rear elevation and the outrigger. No [address] consists of an extension which has a similar footprint to the appeal scheme; however, the flat roof is more modest and less competing lending to it remaining subservient. No [address] has a higher pitched roof compared with the other examples given, but the fully glazed element would allow readability to the outrigger and rear elevation. Nos 122, 93 and [address] predate the current local plan and there may have been differing policies considered at their time of determination. Resultantly, the examples provided would not be sufficiently comparable with the appeal scheme to lead me to an alternative conclusion.

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, for buildings or land therein. The Framework places emphasis on great weight being given to an asset’s conservation and, by virtue of the above assessment, there would be some harm to the CA in a failure to either preserve or enhance its character or appearance. Due to the scale of the proposed development, the harm would be to the lower end of less than substantial. This should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The main parties appear to have not provided any public benefits. This is not suggesting there wouldn’t be any. Some would arise during the construction phase. They would attract limited weight due to being time limited. Overall, they would not outweigh the great weight given to the conservation of the CA.

As such, there would be conflict with Policies D3, D4 and HC1 of The London Plan (LP) 2021, Policies LP1 and LP17 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2022) (HLP) and the guidance contained within [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (SPD). Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and conserve the historic environment, amongst other things.

The appeal proposal is to sit adjacent the boundary treatment to No 76 with a stepping down by virtue of the design. The tallest part of the proposal would sit adjacent the nearest window on the first floor and then would step down to single storey. The larger of the stepped scheme would result in a tall blank elevation directly adjacent a window however its depth would be minimal. Resultantly, whilst there would be an impact in terms of outlook, it would be modest and the wider views would remain unincumbered.

The lower element would have a relatively similar impact compared with the existing situation given the boundary treatments and its own resultant height. Due to the orientation of the extended element and the siting of the dwelling, both sunlight and daylight would not be unacceptably reduced. Resultantly, the proposal would comply with Policies D6 of the LP, Policy LP2 of the HLP and the SPD which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan on the first main issue. The lack of harm identified on the second would not weigh in its favour. It would be neutral. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. 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.