Appeal 6007240

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [address]; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to privacy; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of current and future occupiers of the appeal property with reference to outdoor amenity space.

The appeal concerns a two storey, end of terrace dwelling which forms part of a modern mews development which I am informed was approved in 2015 as part of a regeneration project for the [address] Estate. The terrace is of a contemporary design, with brick ground floor elevations and dark zinc clad roofs. The terrace is uniform in appearance and displays a strong sense of architectural rhythm, with regular ground floor voids forming front courtyard amenity space, projecting window surrounds and gaps at first floor level between adjoining properties.

The proposed extension would have a depth of about 2m and would infill part of the existing front courtyard. It is designed with a flat roof to be used as a roof terrace, with a front brick parapet of 1.62m, with an additional glass balustrade of 0.25m above. A proposed 0.55m high obscure glass screen would be attached to the rear parapet however this would not be visible from the [address] frontage.

The proposed front parapet would be of the same design, height and appearance as the existing brick parapet but would effectively be positioned 2m further forward. The proposed infill extension and associated parapet would retain a set back from the main front elevation by about 1.2m, allowing the front courtyard wall and gates to be retained.

Given the location of the appeal property at the end of the terrace, the visual effect of the proposal on the architectural rhythm of the mews would be limited. The proposed ground floor extension and associated parapet would reflect the original design of the terrace and would be subservient in appearance due to its limited scale and setback from the frontage. The proposed glass balustrade would be transparent and lightweight in appearance and would not have any significant effect on the visual appearance of the dwelling or wider terrace. Other than for the glass balustrade, the proposal would be contained beneath the existing roofline and the first-floor void, which is an important element establishing the rhythm of the mews, would be preserved. Consequently, I am satisfied that the overall appearance, symmetry and overall legibility of [address] would be respected and preserved.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of [address]. Thus, in this regard, the proposal would comply with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policy PLAN1 of the Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies (2023) (SDMP). Together these policies require development to be of a high quality and to deliver good design and make a positive contribution to local character, legibility and distinctiveness.

The original design of the [address] development ensures that no habitable room windows or balconies face directly towards [address] which is a large flatted development immediately to the north of the site. The southern elevation of [address] faces the appeal property in close proximity and contains multiple habitable room windows and balconies, with the ground floor units also benefitting from rear gardens.

In assessing the proposal, the officer report refers to paragraph 1.67 of the SDMP which states that a key aspect of contextual design is ensuring a minimum distance of 18 metres between windows of habitable rooms, to protect privacy for residential developments and existing residential properties. I acknowledge that this distance specifically applies to the distance between habitable rooms and therefore is not directly applicable to the appeal proposal. Nevertheless, the main text of Policy PLAN1 of the SDMP to which paragraph 1.67 refers, requires that a good level of amenity must be provided, including considerations such as overlooking and privacy.

The existing rooflight would provide a barrier to accessing the edge of the parapet and an obscured glass balustrade of 0.55m in height would be attached to the existing rear parapet wall. These measures would help to restrict the ability of users of the proposed roof terrace to look down into the rear gardens of [address]. However, as observed on my site visit, there would be an uninterrupted direct line of sight from anyone stood on the roof terrace across to the upper-level windows and balconies of [address]. At a distance of only around 10 metres, the use of the proposed roof terrace would result in a loss of privacy to occupiers of [address], resulting in significant harm to their living conditions.

The appellants state that there is no planning condition, restriction or legal impediment preventing the existing flat roof from being used as amenity space and consider this to be a fallback position. However, the existing flat roof area is very limited in its extent and is mostly taken up by the roof light. There is currently no access onto the flat roof area which in my judgment would be difficult to access from any existing openings and access via a ladder would involve climbing over the existing parapet. Therefore, in my opinion the existing flat roof is unlikely to be used frequently or for the same purposes as the proposed larger roof terrace. In these circumstances, I do not consider a viable fallback position to exist. Furthermore, given the access and size constraints of the existing flat roof and consequently its likely infrequent use, mutual visibility between occupiers in [address] and the occupants of the appeal site would be highly likely to be worsened as a result of the proposal.

I acknowledge that [address] lies to the north of the appeal site and that users seated on the roof terrace may be more likely to be orientated to face south. However, the roof terrace would have the potential to be used for various forms of social gatherings, where the privacy of the occupiers of [address] would not be guaranteed.

I also place limited weight on the appeal decision1 referred to by the appellant as it does not appear to be directly comparable to the appeal proposal and that scheme was clearly assessed by the Inspector according to the facts and circumstances that related specifically to that particular case. In any event, I am required to determine the appeal proposal on is own merits.

The appellant also provided an additional supporting document which refers to other schemes in Islington, at [address] and [name] of [address] Estate redevelopment. Whilst noted, the layout of those developments and the spatial separation distances involved, do not appear to me to be directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to privacy. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy PLAN1 of the SDMP insofar as it requires a good level of amenity to be provided. Living conditions of current and future occupiers of the appeal property with reference to outdoor amenity space

As with other dwellings in [address], the appeal property benefits from a front courtyard. Whilst the courtyard is relatively small at around 8.2sqm and is enclosed on all sides, the slatted gate and the lattice section of brickwork on the front, south facing elevation, allow light to penetrate the space. Whilst pedestrians and others using [address] may be able to glimpse through the gate and open brick work, the courtyard is nonetheless relatively private. I also observed at my site visit that usage of [address] by pedestrians and cyclists was limited although I 1 Appeal ref: APP/K5600/W/23/3322802 appreciate that this might not always be the case during other times of the day. However, having regard to all of the above considerations, I find that the existing courtyard offers a good standard of privacy and outdoor amenity.

The proposed amount of usable amenity space on the roof terrace would broadly equate in size to the existing courtyard. I acknowledge the advantages of the proposal in that the terrace would receive more direct sunlight and would offer a more open outlook compared with the existing courtyard.

However, given the lack of any meaningful screen to the rear, users of the proposed roof terrace would be directly overlooked by occupiers of [address], particularly from the habitable room windows and balconies at first floor level and above. Taking into account the closeness of these windows and balconies and their likely frequent usage, the level of overlooking that would be likely to occur would result in the proposed roof terrace offering a poor level of privacy. Given the difficulty accessing the existing flat roof area, I cannot accept that this is a situation that already exists to any great extent and therefore the fallback position advanced by the appellant does not, in my opinion, exist.

Whilst the current occupiers may be satisfied with the standard of amenity the proposal would offer, as a matter of judgment, I consider that the roof terrace would offer an inferior standard of amenity overall compared to the existing courtyard, due to a lack of privacy. This leads me to conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the dwelling, with particular reference to outdoor amenity space.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H5 of the SDMP. Amongst other things, this policy requires residential development to provide good quality outdoor space to ensure a good level of amenity with regard to daylight, sunlight, noise, enclosure, overlooking, privacy and security. Where roofs are to be utilised, Policy H5 states that proposals must demonstrate there are no adverse effects relating to noise, overlooking and privacy of future residential occupiers as well as existing residents adjacent to the site.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.