Single-storey rear and infill extension and rear extension of first floor outrigger, and alterations to the front boundary treatment

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 August 2018 by A Parkin BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/18/3202422 3 Wilton Way, Hackney, London E8 3EE  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 Prav Dewdhory against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney.  The application Ref 2017/4988, dated 20 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 March 2018.  The development proposed is a single-storey rear and infill extension and rear extension of first floor outrigger, and alterations to the front boundary treatment. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the alterations to the front boundary treatment. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey rear and infill extension and rear extension of first floor outrigger at 3 Wilton Way, Hackney, London E8 3EE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/4988, dated 20 December 2017, 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: Location Plan 110-0100, 110-4211, 110-3601, 110-3603, 110-4121, 110-4141, 110-4151, 110-3599 and the Design and Access Statement dated 19 December 2017. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. 110-4211 and referred to in the Design and Access Statement. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form lists the applicant as ‘Dewdhory’ as does the decision notice. Both the appeal form and the questionnaire refer to the appellant as ‘Mr Prav Dewdhory’. I am confident that the applicant and the appellant are the same person, and for propriety and to reduce the scope for confusion, I have referred to the appellant by the name used on the appeal form. 3. I have altered the description of the development so that it more accurately reflects what is proposed. 4. The Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on 24 July 2018. The parties were given an opportunity to Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3202422 2 comment on the implications for the decision, although no representations were received within the specified timeframe. 5. For the reasons set out below, I find the proposed rear extensions to be acceptable and they are clearly severable both physically and functionally from the proposed front boundary treatment. Therefore, I intend to issue a split decision in this case and grant planning permission for the rear extensions only. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Graham Road and Mapledene Conservation Area (GRMCA). Reasons 7. The appeal property is located on the northern side of Wilton Way, a predominantly residential street containing a variety of housing types, primarily short terraces. The appeal property is located within a short terrace of seven buildings, comprising three properties on either side of a larger central property. The buildings are 2-storey, predominantly with pitched roofs although some, including the appeal building, have flat roof elements. The buildings are constructed of brick with front gardens containing shrubs and trees. The front boundary treatments are brick walls, sometimes incorporating railings or hedges, and punctuated by footpaths to the front entrances, sometimes including gates. 8. The appeal property has a simple yellow brick wall to its front boundary. The proposed development would replace this with a similar height vertical iron railing fence, coloured black and set on a very low base. A similar iron gate is also proposed. The appellant states that the existing boundary wall is not original. Nevertheless the colour of the bricks is similar to the bricks of the appeal building and relates to it and the terrace in this respect. 9. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) states that the proposal is for brick and railings. However, this is not evident on the submitted drawings or the indicative photographs in the DAS, which show railings on a very low base. Even if the very low base were to be constructed of bricks, this would not alter the overall appearance of the boundary treatment as railings. The appellant has provided images of other front boundary treatments within the GRMCA containing railings; however, I am more concerned with the effects on this particular part of the conservation area. 10. The proposed treatment would be significantly different to the other front boundary treatments of the terrace, including the part railing/part brick treatment at No. 13. These provide a greater sense of enclosure to the gardens than the openness that the proposed railings would provide, and would not, therefore, be in keeping with this part of the GRMCA. This aspect of the proposed development would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the GRMCA and, in my view, result in less than substantial harm. In accordance with paragraph 193 of the Framework, great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. My attention has not been drawn to any public benefits that would outweigh this harm. Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3202422 3 11. For the reasons set out above, the proposed front boundary treatment would conflict with Policies 7.4 (local character), 7.6 (architecture) and 7.8 (heritage assets) of the London Plan 2016 (LP), with Policies 24 (design) and 25 (historic environment) of the Hackney Core Strategy 2010 (HCS), with Policies DM1 (design) and DM28 (historic environment) of the Hackney Development Management Local Plan 2015 (HDMLP) and guidance contained within the Hackney Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (HREASPD), and the Framework 2018, in this regard. 12. The general coherence of the front elevation of the terrace contrasts with the variation to be found on the rear elevation, where a number of the 2-storey outriggers have been extended or altered. 1 Wilton Way has an outrigger with a heightened roof of a different design to the outrigger at the appeal building. 5 Wilton Way has a more conventional outrigger, which mirrors that at the appeal building, but which also contains a large ground floor rear extension with a lantern window in the roof. Further along the terrace other outriggers appear to have been altered and extended considerably, although I am not aware whether any of these alterations have planning permission. 13. The rear of the terrace is much less visible than the front, screened from public roads and with views just from neighbouring properties on Wilton Way, Parkholme Road and Thackeray Mews. The rear gardens of the properties in this area contain substantial planting, including some mature trees and bushes, which limit views of the rear of the appeal property and its neighbours. 14. The proposed first floor rear extension to the brick outrigger would mean it would project some 1.55 metres further than the adjacent outrigger to No. 5. This would disrupt the symmetry of the outriggers to a limited extent. However, the design and materials would replicate the existing. The new timber sash window would be slightly larger than the existing and positioned more centrally on the outrigger, which would thereby relate a little better to the rear elevation of the adjacent outrigger in this respect. As a result, the proposed outrigger extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal building. 15. In terms of the proposed rear ground floor ‘wraparound’ extension, the Council acknowledge that the rear projecting element would be acceptable, and it would project much less than the next door ground floor extension at No. 5. The Council also acknowledge that an infill extension to the side of the existing rear outrigger would be acceptable, so long as it did not extend beyond the rear elevation of the existing outrigger. This is supported by the HREASPD. 16. The concern the Council has is that the infill extension projects beyond the existing rear elevation of the outrigger and links the two elements together to create the ‘wraparound’ effect of a single extension, which is not explicitly covered by the HREASPD. 17. The link element is small in comparison to the rear and infill extension elements and to the host building. The rear and side elements would be constructed from different materials, with the infill extension set back from the rear extension. This would give the appearance of two distinct elements to the ‘wraparound’ extension, which would relate to the existing outrigger. As a result, the proposed ‘wraparound’ extension would not appear to be significantly different to the rear and infill extensions that the Council have Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3202422 4 indicated that they would find acceptable. The proposed extension would not therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building. 18. Substantial and varied alterations and extensions have been made to the rear elevations and outriggers of the terrace containing the appeal building, including the next door properties, as mentioned above. This means that there is very little rhythm or coherence to the rear elevation of the terrace. As a result, both the outrigger extension and the ‘wraparound’ extension would be in keeping with the prevailing pattern of development in this part of the GRMCA, and would thus preserve its character and appearance. 19. For the reasons set out above the rear extensions would accord with Policies 7.4 (local character), 7.6 (architecture) and 7.8 (heritage assets) of the LP 2016, with Policies 24 (design) and 25 (historic environment) of the HCS 2010, with Policies DM1 (design) and DM28 (historic environment) of the HDMLP 2015 and with the Framework 2018, in this regard. Other Matters 20. I note the comments made on the proposal by the Hackney Swifts Group in relation to the provision of an integrated nest box for Swifts, and the Council’s response, which would be to condition such a nest box should planning permission be granted. The Council did not, however, include such a condition amongst the list they have provided should the appeal be allowed. In any event, with reference to government guidance on the use of conditions, such a condition would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions and Conclusion 21. In addition to the standard time limit condition the Council has suggested two conditions which I have considered in the light of government guidance, and in relation to the proposed development. In order to provide certainty, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans would be necessary. A condition to control the external materials and finishes of the development would also be necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. 22. I conclude, therefore, that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted subject to the identified conditions, insofar as it relates to the rear extensions, but dismissed insofar as it relates to the front boundary alterations. Andrew Parkin INSPECTOR