Erection of conservatory to rear of property, single storey side extension and like for like replacement windows to existing house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 February 2018 by Peter D Biggers BSc Hons MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/17/3188256 92 Culford Road, London N1 4HN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Alister Mackie against the decision of the London Borough of Hackney Council.  The application Ref 2017/2535, dated 21 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2017.  The development proposed is erection of conservatory to rear of property, single storey side extension and like for like replacement windows to existing house.  Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of conservatory to rear of property, single storey side extension and like for like replacement windows to existing house at 92 Culford Road, London N1 4HN in accordance with the terms of the application, 2017/2535, dated 21 June 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:580_121; 580_122; 580_123; 580_221; 580_321. 3) Notwithstanding condition No 2, no development shall take place until revised details of the single storey side extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority showing a white stucco banding detail on the front parapet to the extension to align with the stucco banding at ground floor on the main property. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. A second appeal APP/U5360/D/17/3188257 is under consideration at the appeal site at the same time as this appeal. All elements are the same except that the side extension in the other appeal is two storey. For simplicity I have issued a separate decision letter for each appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/17/3188256 2 appearance of the host dwelling, the surroundings of Culford Road and of the De Beauvoir Conservation Area. Reasons 4. Culford Road, where the appeal site is situated, lies within the De Beauvoir Conservation Area. Its form and development is typical of the character of the Conservation Area being lined with short runs of two storey terraces with stepped entrances to an elevated ground floor over a lower ground floor or basement level. They are built in brick and with stucco detailing under butterfly roofs with parapets to the street frontage. The terraces have a uniformity of scale, design, fenestration and materials which gives an attractive rhythm to the street frontage that is punctuated by space between the groups. 5. No 92 Culford Road sits at the end of a group of 4 dwellings with a side space between it and No 90 although this space is currently screened off from the street by a high close-boarded fence with a trellis top. 6. It has been put to me that one of the Conservation Area’s characteristics is the groupings of dwellings and the spaces between them and the appeal proposal would erode this and contribute to a terracing effect. The De Beauvoir Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Guidelines (CAAMG) advises that the maintenance of the space around the blocks is fundamental to the legibility of the layout. However in this case, the proposed side extension being at lower ground floor level would be substantially below the principal built form and mass of the main house. It would not intrude significantly in the side space to the appeal property and its neighbour at No 90 where there is already a substantial screen fence in place. The open area to the side of the terrace, which the CAAMG stresses is as important to the balance of the terrace as the buildings themselves, would continue to appear as an open gap between the blocks when viewed in either direction along the street. 7. The side extension would not exceed half the width of the existing property frontage, one of the criteria for side extensions in the Hackney Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Although I acknowledge that it would extend to the property side boundary and would not be set back to the degree advised in the SPD and in the Council’s pre-application enquiry response, nevertheless the overall height and scale of the extension would still appear proportionate and subordinate to the main house. Thus I am not persuaded that the bulk and massing would be inappropriate to the character and appearance of the host building. The appearance of the side extension could be improved by ensuring that the parapet of the side extension was picked out with a stucco detail aligning with the banding on the host property, much as was proposed with the two storey side extension. If I were to allow the appeal a condition could be attached to ensure the design was revised accordingly. 8. Regarding the rear single storey extension, the design represents a lightweight, predominantly glazed addition sitting on the rear of the house at the lower ground level which would not adversely impact on either the character or appearance of the house or the surroundings of the Conservation Area. Similarly like for like replacement windows in timber would be acceptable for the property which is not listed. 9. The proposals would comply with Policy 24 of the Hackney Local Development Framework Core Strategy (HCS) as the design takes account of the heights and bulk of buildings in relation to existing surroundings. It would also comply with the design objectives of Policy DM1 of the Hackney Development Management Local Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/17/3188256 3 Plan (HDMLP) in that the lower ground floor side extension respects the visual integrity and established scale, massing and rhythm of the building and its frontage. 10. The extension would be sufficiently recessive and respectful of the host property when viewed as part of the street scene such that there would be no harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. While it may not necessarily enhance, it would meet the statutory test of preserving the character of the De Beauvoir Conservation Area. The impact would therefore be at worst neutral. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with both the requirements of paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) which anticipates great weight being given to a heritage asset’s conservation. For the same reasons the proposals would not conflict with Policy 25 of the HCS on the historic and built environment. The proposed extension would also comply with Policy DM28 of the HDMLP, in that the alterations and extensions within the Conservation Area would not upset the scale or proportions of the host building or adversely affect the character, appearance or setting of neighbouring buildings. I am satisfied that, for the reasons above, the extension in this particular case would not conflict with the criteria in these policies or with guidance in the CAAMG. Conditions and Conclusions 11. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and for their clarity. A condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans used to determine the application is necessary as this provides certainty that the development would be carried out in the form proposed. Control of the materials to be used on the exterior of the extension to the dwelling will also be important to ensure they are matching and protect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the Conservation Area. As set out above, notwithstanding that construction should be in accordance with the approved plans, a condition is required to secure that the parapet detail on the side extension is picked out in white stucco and aligned with the existing stucco banding on the property in order to better reflect the character of the host property. This last condition was not proposed by the Council and therefore I have separately consulted both the appellant and the Council on possible wording. Both parties have agreed the condition would be appropriate in the event the appeal is allowed. 12. I have considered the matters before me and, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and permission granted for the extension subject to the conditions set out above. P. D. Biggers INSPECTOR