Appeal 6008844

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey wrap around extension subject to the application reference 2025/2721 in accordance with the conditions as set out in the schedule below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the Kingsland Conservation Area.

The appeal property is one of a pair of original terrace houses that are located near to the corner of [address] and [address]. The house is a building spread over three floors with steps giving access to the upper ground floor over a basement. The building is of buff coloured [name] type brick and sports neo classical surrounds and details to the front door and windows with a parapet shielding from view a series of pitched ‘butterfly’ type roofs behind. In this respect it has similarities with many other houses nearby most notably those within the Kingsland and De Beauvoir Conservation Areas.

To the rear of the property is a two storey brick outshut extension which is paired with the neighbours outshut of a similar type and covers around half of the rear width of the property. I saw on my site visit that there appeared to have been a subsequent extension of this outshot which I consider likely contained a privy or fuel store, some walls of which still remain visible. The rear garden is long and thin with much tree cover and a very high wall divides the plot from its neighbour to the west. As a result, the rear garden is very private and not visible from the public realm.

The proposal before me seeks permission for a single storey rear extension of a pitched roof design that would infill the area to the side of the rear outshut and would also extend by around one metre beyond the existing outshut to around a Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008844 line where the historic privy block appears to have been located. The proposed design would be of a shallow pitched roof design with extensive glazing towards the garden. In light of the pitched roof the extension would oversail the existing upper ground floor bedroom window that looks out to the rear here. In order to try to address this the scheme removes the pitched roof element from the immediate vicinity of this window so as to create a lightwell of sorts.

Internally the extension would maintain the change in level between the lower ground floor and a set of steps would arise within the extension giving access to a dining kitchen below. The ground floor, which aligns with the existing level of the outshut, would contain a principal living space with outlook to the garden. The historic front steps and door into the basement would be restored and reinstated with extra space for cycle storage. Equally, the main front steps would be restored to have stone treads as opposed to the creeping asphalt that currently exists.

The property is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) which encompasses the mixed character that makes up the length of the [address]. It is also near to the De Beauvoir Conservation Area from which the character of the appeal property is arguably more architecturally related. In this respect the character of the site is synonymous with the regular rows of polite housing that make up the notable historic and architectural character of the early expansion of London here.

The rear of the property is not readily visible from any public viewpoint. Nevertheless, it does contribute to the less ornate character of the buildings at the rear, being as it is of a more simple architectural treatment that reflected the lower status typically attributed to the backs of such houses. I saw on my site visit that other houses nearby has similar regular outshuts and this is also a characteristic of the area.

In considering whether to grant planning permission I am required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to give ‘Special Attention’ to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The statutory duties within the Act are reflected in The Framework, which states that ‘[name] should be given to a heritage assets’ conservation and also illustrates the positive contribution that heritage assets can make to the creation of sustainable and economically viable communities. This approach is reflected in the Policy HC1 of The London Plan aswell as Policy LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan which echo the above Act and The Framework in its requirements in this regard.

Due to the historical precedent of a further outward extension to the rear of this property that is still partially extant, I do not consider that the extra one metre associated with the ‘wrapping’ of the extension would be at odds with the historic character here. Moreover, due to the particular nature of the site, being as it is so enclosed within its context, I do not consider that the extra length associated with this scheme would be harmful to the understanding nor the significance of the house or the area as a whole.

As such, I consider that the flexibility that inevitably must come with documents such as the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) should be applied in this case as there is clear evidence Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008844 on the ground that further extensions once protruded beyond that of the original outshut.

Coming to the design of the extension, the use of materials would appear entirely appropriate. Although the rear upper ground floor window would be largely obscured through this scheme, I consider that, were it not for the change in levels here, that such a window would ordinarily become part of any infilling beside such an outshut. As such, in this case, despite this window being slightly obscured, it would still maintain its function and would maintain the legibility of the house as a whole.

When the small but meaningful benefits of this scheme associated with improvements to the front steps and the better functioning of the dwelling as a whole with regards fire protection etc are added to the planning balance, I consider that the proposal as a whole is capable of meeting policies D1, D3, D4 and HC1 of The London Plan aswell as Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan. Although it does not fully meet the guidance within the SPD the historic precedent of further outshut extensions would convince me that such a departure is justified. Overall, I consider therefore that the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved.

I have included the standard conditions regarding materials, accordance with submitted plans and time limit to this permission as agreed by the parties. I see no reason to add further conditions.

For the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I allow this appeal.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2202/1 proposed site plan, 2509/2 existing and proposed lower ground floor plan, 2509/3 existing and proposed upper ground floor plans, 2509/4 existing and proposed first floor plans, 2509/5 existing and proposed roof plans, [address] elevation and axonometric, 2509/6 existing north garden elevations, 2509/8 existing and proposed west sectional elevation, 2509/9 existing and proposed east sectional elevations, and 2509/10 existing and proposed section A.

The external materials used in the proposed development shall match those used in the existing dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.