Appeal 6006706

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear and side extension, part first floor rear extension, alterations and extension to existing rear dormer, replacing and upgrading the existing doors and windows, associated external alterations at [site address] , Hornsey, Haringey, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/3230, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

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 Council has identified the appeal property as both a detached and terraced property at different parts of its officer report. I have noted this contradiction and am clear following my visit that the appeal dwelling is detached and have therefore disregarded the Council’s misidentification of the appeal dwelling.

Although not within the Reason for Refusal, the Council’s officer report identifies that the ground floor rear extension element is also deemed to be unacceptable. Accordingly, I have also considered the effect of this element on the conservation area.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal site consists of [site address] , a two storey detached property situated within a leafy suburb. The site is within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The CA consists of largely residential properties with a small group of commercial properties as well as a surgery and library located at the junctions of [address], Alexandra Park Road and [address]. Houses in the CA are generally substantial, possessing a traditional two storey form and are varied in their design. They do however share common features such as bay windows, gable and hipped roof forms, overhanging eaves and common materials which give the area a unified character. The buildings are all of a similar age and there are several extensive groups of buildings that were clearly of the same design when originally built.

It is this architectural quality and uniformity of important design features that shapes the significance of the CA. As a property positioned centrally within the street scene, the appeal site occupies a visually prominent position and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA.

I observed on my site visit that many of the rear elevations of the properties on [address], [address] and [address] have seen alterations overtime unlike their largely uniform front elevations. As a result, many properties possess ground and first floor rear extensions as well as rear dormers. I note that the Council has stated that some of these first floor additions are original and others are without the benefit of planning permission. However, regardless of how these rear extensions have been erected, they form part of the established character and appearance of the conservation area. The addition of both a ground floor and first floor rear extension at the appeal dwelling would therefore be consistent with the existing character of varied rear elevations to properties in the CA.

The proposed first floor rear extension would sit comfortably within the appeal dwelling’s rear elevation due to its modest width, depth and height. In this respect the extension would appear as a subservient well-proportioned addition. It would be readily assimilated within the rear elevation due to its use of matching materials and pitched roof design. [name] note that first floor rear extensions are not an original feature of the appeal dwelling’s house type, they are a prominent design feature within the CA with examples on both [address] and [address]. The proposal would therefore respond positively to this design precedent.

Moreover, due to the rear extensions position to a less prominent elevation at the appeal dwelling, views of the proposal would be limited to short range views in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. In these views, the key architectural features of the appeal dwelling, including its overall architectural style, roof form, overhanging eaves and traditional materials are evident. As such, its contribution towards the significance of the conservation area as a whole would be preserved in this respect.

Furthermore, the ground floor rear extension, whilst deeper than neighbouring development, would not be especially large and would be read as a comfortable addition to the existing building, causing no harm to the character of the host dwelling or surrounding area.

For the reasons set out the proposed development would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the CA. Thus, according with Policies DM1, DM9 and DM12 of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2017), Policies SP11 and SP12 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies (2017), and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021). These amongst other things seek for development to respect local context and character, and that preserves or enhances conservation areas.

I have considered the suggested conditions against the tests set out in the Framework. I have made amendments where necessary to ensure compliance with these tests or for clarity, brevity or consistency.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I recommend a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

In the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, I have recommended a condition preventing the use of any part of the appeal proposals as a roof terrace.

A condition requiring the details of the replacement windows is not necessary as details of these have been supplied as part of the approved plans.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would accord with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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

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 A/1125/PP8, A/1125/PP7, A/1125/PP5, A/1125/PP10, A/1125/PP4, A/1125/PP9, A/1125/PP6, A/1125/PP11 and Location Plan Scale 1:1250.

No part of any structure hereby granted shall be used as a roof terrace or balcony.