London Borough of Hackney appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Hackney?
Learn which local visual harms inspectors identified and what the allowed boundary-treatment decision recorded.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 145 of 165
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 70
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 71
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 140
- of 146 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Hackney LPA (51.55227, −0.063291). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hackney appeal findings
Hackney character concerns: rear elevations and conservation areas
The selected examples lean towards dismissed appeals, although the matched local set includes both outcomes. They range from a boundary treatment to extensions and a shutter.
Counted against appeals
Rear elevations, shutters and conservation areas
Unbalanced rear elevations stood out
The extension would unbalance the rear elevation and visibly harm the terrace.
Variety did not excuse discordance
Despite varied nearby buildings and past extensions, the additional storey was found discordant and harmful to the conservation area.
Rear shutter harmed the conservation area
The inspector concluded that the rear roller shutter would not preserve or enhance the conservation area.
Helped or needed
What helped the front boundary treatment
Prevailing character was maintained
The inspector found the bike store, planter and gate would respect and maintain the prevailing character and appearance.
Original boundary details were considered
The reasoning said replacement walls and gates should respect original character, height and materials, plus the surrounding streetscape.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify an unbalanced rear elevation or altered visual relationship?
- Is your proposal within a conservation area, and does the notice say how it harms it?
- For a boundary change, does the refusal address original height, materials and street character?
Only the selected Hackney examples were reviewed. They compare a front boundary treatment with extensions and a rear shutter. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
11 December 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a bike storage unit with planter and gate to the front of the property of a terrace house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document sets out that low brick walls are characteristic of Hackney’s streetscape, and that where walls and gates are to be replaced care should be taken to respect the original character, height and materials of the boundary treatment and the surrounding streetscape. I have had due regard to the guidance and, for the reasons identified, find that the prevailing character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area would be respected and maintained.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
22 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as roller shutter door on rear boundary wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. There is conflict with Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020); and Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 which seeks amongst other things to ensure development are of a high standard, responding to local character and context and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 2
14 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a ground floor rear extension, loft, and outrigger extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would unbalance the rear elevation of the host dwelling and detrimentally alter its visual relationship with No 77. This would be clearly visible from [address] behind the site. Therefore, the proposal would not respond positively to its context and would not be of the highest architectural quality as required by Policy LP1 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (adopted 2020). Therefore, it would harm the character and appearance of the terrace as a whole and the local area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
24 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a proposed loft conversion over the main roof with a sloped roof to the front and a mansard construction to the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given the above, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to the Hackney Local Plan 2033, adopted July 2020, specifically Policy LP1 which seeks to ensure new development responds to local character and context and is compatible with the existing townscape. There would be further conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to prevent development of poor design that fails to reflect local design policies and guidance.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
28 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of an additional storey over the existing two storey modern residential building at [site address] , [postcode] . The proposed scheme would provide an additional bedroom and bathroom to the existing two-bedroom house with covered and protected waste storage and cycle parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having carefully considered the appellant’s historical analysis of the area, and recognising that the locality has evolved with extensions and new development in locations that are away from the main highway introduced over time, I find that the appeal scheme would be an unwelcome addition to the CA. It would be a discordant element in the streetscape and the local area even among the varied built form with which the new extension would be visually ‘read’. The main outcome would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the CA, which would fail to be preserved.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2