New pitched roof to the front elevation and a mansard roof to the rear elevation, all to provide an additional floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 August 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/18/3203775 30 Beck Road, Hackney, London E8 4RE  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 Ms Lisa Herriett against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney.  The application Ref 2017/4582 was refused by notice dated 15 March 2018.  The development proposed is a new pitched roof to the front elevation and a mansard roof to the rear elevation, all to provide an additional floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new pitched roof to the front elevation and a mansard roof to the rear elevation, all to provide an additional floor level, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2017/4582, dated 22 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: BR-30-01. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published before the date of this decision. Having considered the role and content of the Framework in relation to this case, I see no need to consult about this change in national policy. 3. Condition 2 references plan number BR-30-01 as stated on the application form and as provided for this appeal. The Council’s refusal notice lists drawings BR-30-101, BR-30-102 and BR-30-103, but I have not been provided with these and have seen no other reference to them. Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3203775 2 Main issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the house and the local area. Reasons 5. Beck Road is an attractive street of well proportioned but modest, relatively plain, 2 storey Victorian terraced houses. The street is bisected by a rail viaduct. To the east the houses have normal pitched roofs, whilst to the west they have butterfly roofs behind a parapet. Although the street has been noted as a potential conservation area in a 2017 Conservation Area Review, it has not been designated. 6. 30 Beck Road is a typical mid-terrace house on the western side of the viaduct. The proposal is to build a roof extension, with a sloped roof at the front and a mansard style with dormer windows at the back. I noted only 1 other roof extension in the western part of Beck Road, across from No 30 at No 23. 7. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and Alterations (SPD) advises that there are several traditional roof-forms typical of houses in Hackney, including mono-pitch, gabled, hipped, butterfly (also known as a valley or ‘W’ roof) and mansard roofs. It notes that the continuity of the parapet line is an important feature of early/mid Victorian streets and is typical of the street scene, so roof extensions are not normally acceptable in those terraces where an unbroken roof line remains. 8. In this case the parapet of the terrace is unbroken, as is the line of the butterfly roofs at the back (at least insofar as I could see at my site visit). The proposal would be set back from the parapet at the front, sloping sharply back from the street to leave the parapet intact and minimise visual impact. Like the other nearby roof extension, it would hardly be seen from the street and would not be seen at all from the sides except in views from passing trains. To the rear, the traditional mansard design would fit in well with the roof form, leaving the outline of the butterfly roof intact. This would only be seen in views from a small number of neighbouring houses and the trains. 9. The proposal would therefore leave both the parapet and the line of the butterfly roof undisturbed and would have no more than a minimal visual impact. The Council raises no objection to the proposed design, which is appropriate and similar to many other roof extensions in the wider area. 10. I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the house or the local area. It therefore accords with the aims of London Plan Policies 7.4 and 7.6, Hackney Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy 24, Hackney Development Management Local Plan Policy DM1 and the SPD, to ensure that development enriches and enhances Hackney’s built environment, reinforcing local distinctiveness with details and materials that complement but not necessarily replicate local architectural character. 11. I have also taken account of neighbours’ comments. The proposal would include 2 second floor rear windows. Although these would look towards the backs of the houses on the next street, they would not add significantly to existing overlooking or noise potential within this tightly built up urban Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3203775 3 neighbourhood. Likewise, no significant additional overshadowing or loss of light would be caused. 12. I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty and another requiring the use of matching materials to protect local character and appearance. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR