London Borough of Islington appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Islington?
Learn the stated character-and-appearance concerns and what an allowed roof extension was found to achieve.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 68 of 95
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 51
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 60
- of 68 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: Islington LPA (51.548488, −0.110222). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Islington appeal findings
Extensions said to harm Islington's character
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and their extracts give conclusions rather than detailed design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Extension schemes judged harmful to Islington's character
Siting, bulk and height
An added storey was found harmful to the area's character and appearance because of its siting, design, form, massing, bulk and height.
Material harm to host and area
The inspectors concluded the proposed developments would materially harm the host building and local area.
Hip-to-gable and dormer harm
The hip-to-gable and dormer proposal was concluded to cause unacceptable harm to the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed roof extension in Islington
Sympathetic to its surroundings
The roof extension was concluded to be sympathetic to the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name concerns about siting, bulk, massing or height?
- Does it say how your building or area would be harmed?
- Does it explain why your proposal is not sympathetic to the surrounding area?
The displayed extracts cover extension proposals and do not reveal the detailed design comparisons within each decision. 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
13 December 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described within the application form as ‘new mansard roof extension and extension to rear roof, following previous approved applications for Planning and Permitted Development for similar developments’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the development would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore accord with Policies CS8 and CS9 of [name] (2011) and Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2013), which together require high quality urban design which responds positively to existing buildings and reflects the character of the area.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
4 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as: “Householder application. Additional storey to existing family home to match predominant building height along street. New external wall insulation and render, with alterations to windows throughout. Amendments to front facade to include new entrance porch and alterations to front garden including new air source heat pump.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, by virtue of its siting, design, form, massing, bulk and height, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with LP Policy PLAN1 and the provisions of the UDG, the aims of which have previously been set out. It would also conflict with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which have similar aims.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
23 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
hip to gable, L shaped dormer, floor plan redesign and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is in conflict with policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS8 of [name] (2011), Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2013) and policies PLAN1 and DH1 from the emerging Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies (September 2019). These policies, amongst other things, require development to deliver good design, reflect the character of the area and respond positively to existing buildings.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a second-floor roof extension over outrigger and alterations to existing dormer.
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
On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Accordingly, it is contrary to Policies D1 and D4 of The London Plan, Policy CS 8 of [name] and Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies. These policies broadly aim to ensure that new development is high quality and that it positively contributes to the local character and distinctiveness of an area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
24 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a first-floor rear extension to outrigger.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it is contrary to Policies D1 and D4 of The London Plan, Policy CS 8 of [name] and Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies. These policies aim to ensure that development achieves a high quality of design that is appropriate to its context and reflects and positively contributes to local character and distinctiveness of an area. The proposal also conflicts with the SPD and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which require that development is sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2