Create habitable roof space in a single family residential building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th July 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/U5360/D/18/3201080 9 Stamford Grove East, Hackney, London N16 6LS  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 S Williams against the decision of the London Borough of Hackney Council.  The application (reference 2018/0124, dated 11 January 2018) was refused by notice dated 8 March 2018.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “create habitable roof space in a single family residential building”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a roof extension and other alterations at 9 Stamford Grove East, Hackney, London N16 6LS, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 2018/0124, dated 11 January 2018) and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions. Preliminary point 2. Notwithstanding the description of the proposed development given in the planning application form, the appeal proposals can adequately and succinctly be described as the construction of a roof extension and other alterations at number 9 Stamford Grove East, Hackney. Main issue 3. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. Reasons 4. Stamford Grove East is located in a closely built up part of London, with good access to the transport network. It is a short cul-de-sac, predominantly characterised by residential development (with an imposing block of flats opposite the appeal site) but it is dominated visually by a high perimeter fence to a school playground, along most of its northern frontage. Appeal Decision: APP/U5360/D/18/3201080 2 5. Number 9 Stamford Grove East stands at the end of the cul-de-sac, beyond the school fence, where it forms a pair with number 10. The two houses are very different in appearance, however. While number 10 is a Georgian style property, number 9, the appeal building, dates from the early part of the twentieth century and is designed in an Arts & Crafts style. It has a steeply pitched roof above rendered walls, with architectural embellishments, including a semi-circular feature at parapet level on the front elevation and a large bay window on the front elevation. The appeal building is “locally-listed” and is to be considered as a “heritage asset”. 6. It is now proposed to alter the shape of the main roof, to create a new bedroom that would be lit by rooflights, thus reducing an existing area of flat roof. A protective handrail would be fixed to the remaining part of the flat roof, above the front and side elevations, inside the existing parapet walls. 7. The site immediately adjoins the Northwold and Cazenove Conservation Area and provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 impose obligations on those considering whether to grant planning permission for development that would affect a conservation area. In such cases, decision makers are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas affected by development proposals. 8. Those formal requirements are reinforced by the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’, especially at Section 12, which emphasises the importance of conserving and enhancing the historic environment, though it also points out the desirability of putting a heritage asset to its “optimum viable use” as does the ‘Planning Practice Guidance’. 9. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ also emphasises the aim of “requiring good design” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 7) and it points out the importance of creating an attractive streetscape and maintaining the overall quality of the area. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes providing good standards of accommodation, reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 10. Policies in the Development Plan also reinforce these important principles. Of particular relevance are Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of ‘The London Plan’, Policies 24 and 25 of the ‘Hackney Local Development Framework Core Strategy’ and Policies DM1 and DM28 of the ‘Hackney Development Management Local Plan’. 11. Hackney’s ‘Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and Alterations’ is also relevant, though it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. 12. The proposed alterations to the existing roof form would not obscure the most important architectural elements of the existing building, nor would the finished roof be overly dominant in relation to the host building or the streetscene more generally. The proposed railings would be set behind the existing parapet and would not clash visually with the existing features at this level, the chimneys and the semi-circular adornment. Provided that the railings are neatly detailed and carefully executed, they would not be intrusive, especially in the context of the existing streetscene. Nor would the project create an unacceptable degree of overlooking in relation to the neighbouring school. Appeal Decision: APP/U5360/D/18/3201080 3 13. The appeal scheme would amount to a modest extension to the existing dwelling but it would provide useful additional space and would, thereby, add to the stock of residential accommodation in the locality, albeit in a very limited way. I have concluded that the project would not harm the character or appearance of the host building or its setting. Hence, it would not be in conflict with the national legislation or the Development Plan, in principle, and it is acceptable in planning terms. In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 14. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of those suggested by the local planning authority in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. 15. For the avoidance of doubt, a more specific condition has also been imposed to require the submission of details of the proposed railings (since the drawings themselves provide only limited information in this respect). Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR Appeal Decision: APP/U5360/D/18/3201080 4 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: unnumbered Ordnance Survey site plan (1:1250); drawing number Sw.01 (existing … plans); drawing number Sw.02a (proposed … plans); drawing number Sw.05a (existing/proposed … elevations); drawing number Sw.06a (existing/proposed … elevations); drawing number Sw.07a (existing/proposed … elevations); drawing number Sw.10 (site plan). 3) 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. 4) Notwithstanding the general provisions of other conditions, no work shall commence on the roof level railings that are hereby permitted until detailed drawings (at appropriate scales) of the proposed railings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, using the approved materials.