Erection of a first floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 August 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/18/3204912 7 Ormsby Place, Hackney, London N16 8ER  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 James Lyons against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney.  The application Ref 2018/0871, dated 22 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first floor rear extension at 7 Ormsby Place, Hackney, London N16 8ER in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2018/0871, dated 22 February 2018, 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 plans: Refs SPP-00, SPP-01, SPP-02, SPP-03, SPP-04, SPP-05, SPP-06, SPP-07 and SPP-08. 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. Procedural matter 2. I have assessed the proposed development in the light of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that was issued on 24 July 2018. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building or the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terrace, 2-storey dwelling that is situated towards the head of a residential cul-de-sac. The proposal is to infill the first floor recess at the back of the main house with a single storey extension. The new mono pitched roof would mirror that of the existing 2-storey outrigger thus creating a butterfly style roof. The modest scale, height and mass of the proposal would not significantly add to the scale and bulk of the existing Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3204912 2 building. Nor, when considered with other additions to the property, could it reasonably be described as overdevelopment of the plot. Appropriate external materials would be used and the size and position of the new openings would be in keeping with the fenestration in the rear façade. Consequently, the intrinsic character of the host dwelling would be maintained with the new built form in place. 5. As the proposal would be at the back of No 7 it would not be seen from Ormsby Place. The new extension would be evident from the rear gardens of the properties on either side of the site. Such views would be at an oblique upward angle and in the context of the more substantial built form of the host terrace. Given the modest scale and appropriate design of the proposed extension, and its physical and visual containment within the built form of the host building, it would not appear obtrusive as the Council suggests. 6. From what I saw, there is no obvious historic or architectural feature or significant pattern to the rear elevations in the wider terrace that the appeal scheme would significantly harm or disrupt. That the appeal dwelling would be the only example with the 2-storey full width rear projection would not draw the eye given the varied rear profile of the terrace. The overall appearance and character of the rear terrace would be unaffected to any significant degree by the proposed development. 7. On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building or the local area. As such, it does not conflict with Policy 24 of the Council’s Core Strategy, Policy DM1 of the Development Management Local Plan, Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan or the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that development enriches the built environment, achieves a high quality design response to its context, and respects the character of the environment. 8. There would be no greater potential for overlooking of the rear gardens of the properties on either side of the site than would be possible from the existing rear first floor window or the existing first floor terrace. Consequently, I share the Council’s opinion that there would be no material reduction in the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties on either side of the site, with particular regard to privacy. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, it is necessary to attach a condition that requires the use of external materials to match those of the existing dwelling. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR