Proposed scope of works include:

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 October 2018 by Tobias Gethin BA (Hons), MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/D/18/3210559 28 Belitha Villas, Islington, London N1 1PD  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 Andrew MacDonald against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Islington.  The application Ref P2018/1875/FUL, dated 11 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 August 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘The proposed scope of works include: - Replace the existing roof finish for matching slates - Rebuild rear dormer and roof pitch to front roof - Insert 2 number new rooflights (side & front) - Replace 4 number second floor windows - Install solar panels to rear roof’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition and erection of rear dormer, re-roofing, installation of (2) roof lights to front and side roof slope, solar panels to rear roof slope, replacement of windows (4) with double glazed timber sash frame windows at second floor level front and rear elevations at 28 Belitha Villas, Islington, London N1 1PD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P2018/1875/FUL, dated 11 May 2018, 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: 1056/100 Rev P1, 1056/101 Rev P1, 1056/104, 1056/105 Rev P1, 1056/106 Rev P1, 1056/107 Rev P1, 1056/108 Rev P1, 1056/109 Rev P1, 1056/110 Rev P1, 1056/111 Rev P1, 1056/112 Rev P1, 1056/113 Rev P1, 1056/114 Rev P1, 1056/115 Rev P1, 1056/116 Rev P1, 1056/117 Rev P1, 1056/118 Rev P1, 1056/119 Rev P1, except in respect of the artificial slate tiled roof finish and the dark grey metal framed rooflights referred to in the key on plans 1056/112 Rev P1, 1056/113 Rev P1, 1056/114 Rev P1, 1056/115 Rev P1, 1056/116 Rev P1, 1056/117 Rev P1, 1056/118 Rev P1. 3) Notwithstanding condition 2, all external slate tiles to be used in the construction of the rear dormer and the re-roofing hereby permitted shall match the natural slates used in the existing dwelling. 4) Notwithstanding condition 2, the two rooflights hereby permitted shall be conservation style rooflights. Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/18/3210559 2 Procedural Matter 2. The revised description of development provided on the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form more accurately describes the proposal. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Barnsbury Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within the Barnsbury Conservation Area (CA), which is subject to an Article 4 direction. The significance of the CA lies in its rare quality of consistency and completeness. As per Islington’s Conservation Area Design Guidelines (2002), the CA also contains many fine examples of formal late-Georgian/early-Victorian residential buildings, including some of the finest sequences of squares and terraces in London. 5. With a residential character, the appeal site contains a tall, attractive semi- detached dwellinghouse on the southern side of Belitha Villas. With a similar traditional Victorian appearance and design to that of surrounding buildings, and despite alterations including the existing rear dormer, the appeal site contributes positively to the surrounding area and the CA. 6. There are a number of rear dormers on the southern side of Belitha Villas. These vary in size and appearance, ranging from traditional to more modern designs, and include some which are larger than the appeal proposal. While I note the limited weight afforded to the existing dormer at No 32 by the Council, there has been no suggestion that it is currently the subject of enforcement action. Rear dormers, including the appeal site’s, are also visible from surrounding gardens and the highway, (including from the southern side of Belitha Villas, Barnsbury Square and Mountfort Crescent). These views are mostly long-distance glimpses generally restricted to small gaps between existing built form and various trees/shrubs. 7. I give significant weight to the presence of dormers in the surrounding area because they clearly form part of the area’s appearance. This is notwithstanding the guidance within Islington’s Conservation Area Design Guidelines, which seeks to restrict dormer roof extensions except to the properties listed in Schedule 10.2. 8. The proposal would replace the existing rear dormer with a slightly larger roof extension with more contemporary fenestration. It would therefore have a slightly more noticeable presence and more modern appearance than the existing dormer. However, the size increase would not be significant, and it would continue to be located in the top corner of the rear roof. It would therefore be modest, and subservient to and respectful of the host property. It would also not be significantly more visible from the surrounding area than the existing rear dormer. 9. The existing rear dormer has traditional glazed bar windows. The proposal would introduce a more modern looking window with a single vertical glazing bar. However, the proposed rear dormer would be located off-centre from the Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/18/3210559 3 appeal property’s main rear wall and would therefore not be seen as relating to or aligning with the timber sash windows below, as per the existing dormer. The more modern fenestration would therefore be less noticeable. This would neither appear incongruous, nor unsightly, and would not detract from the building’s form and overall appearance. 10. Due to its appearance, positioning and modest size, the proposed rear dormer would be seen from the private and public realms as a small, contemporary and sympathetic addition to the host building. Consequently, and given the appeal site’s surroundings, the proposed dormer would not appear out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host property, surrounding area or the CA. 11. As the appellant notes, there are a few rooflights serving surrounding buildings, including along the southern side of Belitha Villas. At my site visit, I noted that existing rooflights along Belitha Villas are only occasionally visible due to the height and roof slope of the buildings and their proximity to one another. Although the proposed plans do not confirm whether the rooflights would be visible from the streetscene, I noted on my site visit that the existing small side rooflight at the appeal site is visible from the highway. However, it is generally only visible from a short section on the northern side of Belitha Villas. 12. The proposed replacement side rooflight would be slightly shorter and only a little wider, and would have a slender profile. The proposed front rooflight would be a similar size. Although located on an exposed pitched roof, the proposed rooflights would only be visible from limited points along the public realm. This is due to the appeal property’s height and relatively shallow roof slope, and its proximity to neighbouring buildings. 13. The appellant’s Design and Access Statement indicates that conservation style rooflights would be used. These would be flush with the roof and could be secured by condition. This would ensure the proposed rooflights would not be particularly visible and thus their effect on the host building and surrounding area would be very limited. On this basis, and given the presence of other rooflights in the surrounding area, I am satisfied that the proposed rooflights would not appear incongruous or out of character. 14. The application form refers to matching slate tiles while the proposed plans refer to artificial slate tiles. The Council objected to the use of the latter. However, the appellant has subsequently confirmed their intention to use matching natural slate. Being found in the surrounding area, I am satisfied that the proposed matching natural slate would be acceptable, and the Council has not objected to this. This can be secured by means of condition. 15. I am aware that there are locally and statutorily listed buildings nearby as referred to in the Council’s officer report. However, because of the limited effect of the proposed development, I am satisfied that the setting and significance of these heritage assets would be preserved. 16. The Council’s decision notice and officer report do not object to the principle of re-roofing the host building, the introduction of solar panels on its rear roof or the replacement of 4 windows on the second floor of the appeal property. With the appellant’s confirmation of their intention to use natural slates to match the existing roof, I concur with the Council’s view that these elements of the proposed development are acceptable. Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/18/3210559 4 17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Barnsbury Conservation Area. I therefore find that the proposal accords with policies CS8 and CS9 of Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) and DM2.1 and DM2.3 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2013), and the guidance contained within the Council’s ‘Urban Design Guide’ (2017). I also find that the proposal broadly accords with the general aims of Islington’s Conservation Area Design Guidelines (2002). 18. These policies and documents require developments to be of a suitable scale and high architectural quality and design which, amongst other things: respect and respond positively to the area’s character and surrounding heritage assets; reinforce, complement and make a positive contribution to the area’s local character and distinctiveness; and protect, conserve and enhance heritage assets and the historic environment in a manner appropriate to their significance. It would also accord with the design and heritage objectives set out in Sections 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Other matters 19. Compared to the existing dormer, the proposed dormer would have more glazing and, as noted by a neighbour, would raise the skyline a little due to its larger size. However, its increase in size and glazing, and proximity to neighbouring properties and their gardens, would not be significant enough to result in a material change from the existing situation. Therefore, it would not harm neighbours’ living conditions. 20. The Islington Swifts Group commented that the appeal site is in an area where swifts nest or will potentially nest. Conservation groups are concerned about the conservation status of swifts and a decline in their numbers. However, an integrated swift nestbox brick would not appear to be compatible with the proposed roof extension. Although the group has requested external swift boxes be installed near to the roof level instead, this would be beyond the extent of the proposed development. Given the scope of the proposal, imposing a condition requiring a swift nestbox brick be installed elsewhere on the host property is not necessary to make the development acceptable in this instance. Conditions and conclusion 21. I have imposed conditions requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty and to maintain the character and appearance of the area. However, this is with the exception of artificial slates and non-conservation rooflights as noted in the paragraphs above. It is necessary to ensure that appropriate natural slate and conservation rooflights are used in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Conditions 3 and 4 address these issues. 22. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. Tobias Gethin INSPECTOR