Appeal 6008995

The Appeal is dismissed

This appeal is closely related to a similar scheme to the adjoining house at number [address]. These schemes share great similarities but, at the request of the Appellants they have been determined as separate cases, independent of each other. I have therefore had regard to this adjacent scheme but ultimately determine this appeal based upon the proposed intervention to number [address].

The description of development above differs from that used in the original application form and is the description used by the Council. I consider that the description used still accurately describes the scheme proposed and I have used this accordingly.

This appeal is related to a separate application for full costs which is subject to a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the Barnsbury Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is, when seen from [address], the left hand property of a pair of substantial semi detached houses that date from the Georgian and Victorian residential expansion of the city, much of which is covered by the Barnsbury Conservation Area (CA). The CA is recognised as being of outstanding importance as one of the best examples of early 19th century residential developments in the city of London. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008995

The property stands to the corner of [address] and, despite intervening trees it is visible from the nearby [address] Garden, which is, as its name suggests, a polite garden square the like of which punctuate the residential planned development here. The property is of three storeys with a neo classical ground floor plinth that appears to be stucco rendered and contrasts with the London stock brick of the rest of the building. To the ground floor there is a Triangular pedimented main entrance aswell as a similar window to the side. The ground floor also contains a white rendered or painted bay window of Victorian design and proportions which may be a later addition. To the front garden of the property there is a semi mature tree that is located near to the location of the front pedestrian gate.

To the rear there is a large modern window glazed with a single glazed pane and this introduces a modernist aesthetic into the rear elevation. To the side the property is largely unarticulated other than the ground floor classically styled window and other secondary windows above. The property sports a butterfly type slate roof but this is largely hidden behind its brick parapet which is a common feature within the area. As a result, the defining features of the roof top of this building are concerned with its flat roof and prominent chimney stacks.

The proposal before me is in two parts. Firstly, this includes a modification to the front gate whereby the existing pier would be removed to align it against the front steps and doorway and new entrance gates would be installed. Secondly it would involve alterations to the roof and these are largely related to that of the other appeal to the adjacent building, number [address].

These roof extensions would create a slate hung and lead clad mansard type roof storey feature along with the raising of the existing chimney stacks and the brick party wall between the two adjoining neighbours. The roof extension would be higher to the centre of the two properties and would reduce in height as it extends towards the side elevations. I consider this is due to the protrusion in the front elevation where the central portion of the pair protrudes forward. As a result around one third of the proposed top storey windows would protrude over the existing parapet.

Inside the mansard structures there would be a bedroom suite with en suite bathroom, dressing and wardrobe space. The internal floor to ceiling heights would be similar to those of the rest of the house although it would appear technically possible to increase the ceiling heights of the inner part of the room due to the raising of the roof form towards the chimney stacks.

In determining this appeal, 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 Barnsbury 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 Policies D4 and HC1 of The London Plan aswell as Policies PLAN1, DH1 and DH2 Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008995 of the Islington Local Plan both of which echo the above Act and The Framework in its requirements in this regard.

I consider that the determination of this appeal hinges on two elements. Firstly, the significance of the existing perception of flat roofs and how important this is to the overall character and appearance of the area. And, secondly, the effect of the roof extensions upon this significance and whether any harm would be sustained to this character and appearance through this proposal.

The property is a fairly prominent building within the CA due to it occupying a corner plot adjacent to the [address] Garden and through the appeal site and its neighbour encroaching into views along [address] which is almost opposite the site.

The Council have a strong presumption against upward extensions, although I saw on my site visit that there are several forms and designs of roof extensions within the local area. I also note in Schedule 10.2 of the Conservation Area Design Guidelines that the whole terrace opposite [address] Garden, number 62 through [address] are allowed to extend upwards.

I could not fully ascertain why some buildings either have upward extensions or why some are allowed and others precluded from having them. From my assessment however I notice that many buildings appear flat roofed due to their low pitched roofs often behind parapets, and many such roof forms still remain within the area, the appeal property being one. In the absence of any evidence or analysis to the contrary, I consider that such features are likely an original design intend and they are therefore generally a characteristic which it would be desirable to preserve.

The way that this appeal site differs perhaps from many other sites nearby is the fact that it is so high and noticeable within this context. This is especially true of views towards the site from [address] where it creates something of a termination of this view. Although some of the roof is obscured in summer due to surrounding trees, in winter I expect that the flat roof form with protruding chimney stacks would appear more obvious.

Despite modifications to the scheme design, the proposed roof form would still appear higher to the side nearest the chimney stack and this would introduce a larger roof form than would appear to be necessary here for adequate internal head height. I see no convincing justification for this and, whilst a lower roof form could be demonstrated to be largely obscured by the parapet from much of the street level, this design would make any such roof extension appear much more visible and the street visualisations illustrate this very effectively. Moreover, although the existing chimney stacks are very prominent features, it appears that they are being raised simply to maintain this prominence which is rather disingenuous.

In assessing this scheme therefore, I consider that there would be less than substantial harm through the significant protrusion of the proposed roof top extension, more so where it raises closer to the chimney stacks. This would dilute the dominance of what appears from many areas to be a characteristic flat roof building. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6008995

In the absence of any convincing justification nor public benefits other than those limited public benefits and private benefits as set out in the Appellant’s statement I consider that such harms cannot be outweighed through this design especially when such a design, to be successful, would require the adjoining property to do the same at the same time (see other matters below).

Although this appeal is separate to that of its neighbour at number 39, I am unable to entertain the idea that by allowing one such roof feature then the other may not be executed at the same time. Were such an occurrence to happen then the two houses that form number 37 and 39 would run the real risk of appearing completely unbalanced. The Appellant has made it perfectly clear that they would not wish any condition to seek to ensure any such development occurred simultaneously and this runs the real risk that one could be implemented without the other.

Such a scenario, however unlikely as it may be, would be a very unfortunate situation and were only one half of such a scheme to be implemented there would be much more significant harm to the conservation area as a result.

With regards this I am aware of Paragraph 125 of the Framework and I consider that there is no exceptional justification for the harm that would be sustained to the CA were only one such scheme to prevail. This is more so the case with this scheme not offering any form of new housing accommodation as per the stipulations of Paragraph 125 (e).

With regards the moving of the gate pier to the front, I raise no objection with regards this but I consider that such an alteration could result in harm to the tree roots and as such I am unable to offer a split decision in this regard as I cannot be confident that no such harm to the tree would occur.

[name] note the appeal decision to the property further along [address], this building is within a different location, not as physically prominent, and has a specific history with regards its architectural evolution. As such although I have considered the outcome of this appeal I do not consider that these sites are directly comparable.

In summary this building is a prominent building and would extend its upper floor in a manner than would be overly dominant and visually prominent. As such it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Barnsbury Conservation Area and would be in conflict with Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan aswell as Policies PLAN1, DH1 and DH2 of the [name] and Development Management Policies Local Plan.

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