Erection of a roof extension to create an additional storey

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/18/3209036 7 Poole Road, London, E9 7AE  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 Ricky Sharpe against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney.  The application Ref 2018/1234, dated 30 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 July 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a roof extension to create an additional storey. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The description of the development originally included a two storey rear extension at lower and upper ground levels (in addition to the roof extension). Since the appeal was made, the Council has granted planning permission for the two storey rear extension. The appellant has subsequently confirmed that this is no longer to be considered as part of the appeal. Consequently, my decision concerns the roof addition only. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Victoria Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 4. The appeal property is a three storey terraced dwelling, which is situated in a residential area within the CA. The CA covers a relatively wide area, which includes high density terraced housing, dating mainly from the late Victorian period. Many of these dwellings (including the appeal property) exhibit a number of architectural details and characteristics. These include ‘butterfly roofs’ at the rear and parapets to the roofs at the front. In my opinion, these roofs are distinctive and important features that contribute to the heritage significance of the CA. Furthermore, the evidence before me is that there are no roof extensions on the other properties along the terrace. 5. The proposal is to construct a mansard type extension on the roof. It would cover most of the width of the roof and it would project above the parapet at Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3209036 2 the front and above the ‘butterfly roof’ at the rear. I accept the appellant’s statement that the extension would not be highly visible at the front, because of the relatively narrow width of the street and the height of the building. 6. The Council has referred to a number of Development Plan policies in its decision notice. These are the starting point for my decision. The policies generally require new development to be of high quality design; to make a positive contribution to the built environment of Hackney; and to conserve and enhance heritage assets. I note in particular that Policies DM1 and DM28 of the adopted Hackney Development Management Local Plan 2015 state that development, including extensions, should retain characteristic rooflines and roof detail. 7. I consider that the Development Plan policies quoted by the Council accord with paragraph 127 and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (the Framework), which contain similar provisions. 8. In addition, I have considered the relevant content of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions and Alterations 2009 (SPD). Although the SPD states that mansard type roof extensions can be appropriate, it also states that roof extensions are not normally acceptable in terraces where an unbroken roof line remains. 9. Although views of the proposal from the front would be limited, in my opinion, the roof extension would be an incongruous and discordant feature on the building, because of its overall size and bulk. As there are no other roof additions evident along this section of Poole Road, I also find that the development would disrupt the uniformity and appearance of the terrace at roof level. As a result, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan and with the Framework, as referred to above. 10. I consider that the harm to the CA would be less than substantial in the context of paragraph 196 of the Framework. Consequently, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would provide additional accommodation in the property. However, in my opinion that does not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR