Erection of additional fourth storey to provide ancillary space to single family dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2019 By H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:1 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/18/3217611 2c Grazebrook Road, Hackney, London, N16 0HS • 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 Jaimie Johnston and Mrs Jennifer Johnston against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney. • The application Ref. 2018/2591, dated 16 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 September 2018. • The development proposed is erection of additional fourth storey to provide ancillary space to single family dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part, and the wider street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a three-storey dwelling within a terrace of six flat-roofed properties. Although there are some differences in detail, such as door style, the group appears cohesive due to the original post-war design and materials. The wider street scene contains a mix of modern and traditional properties, and the terrace of which the appeal property forms part is a fairly uniform group with its own contribution to the street scene. The dwellings in the terrace all have a flat-roofed stair hood on top of the roof, but these are largely hidden from public view due to the height of the dwellings, the modest height and size of the hoods, and their positions on the roof. 4. The proposed roof extension would be set some distance back from the front of the property, but I am not convinced that it would be invisible in views from Grazebrook Road due to its height and overall size. The appellant indicates that the proposal would not be readily visible, but that it may be possible to see the edge of the roof. However, I consider that even this minor disruption to an otherwise uniform flat roof would detract from the appearance of the terrace as a whole, and the wider character and appearance of the street scene. The visual intrusion of the proposal breaking the roof line as an isolated feature would appear incongruous and jarring in views of the terrace as a whole. The submitted plans indicate that views of the proposal would be filtered by street Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3217611 2 trees, but given their deciduous nature and the gaps between planting this benefit would be limited. 5. Policy DM1 of the Council’s Development Management Local Plan 2015 (DMLP) requires all development to respect the visual integrity and established scale, massing and rhythm of the building, group of buildings or street scene of which they form part. Amongst other criteria, Core Strategy (CS) Policy 24 also requires development to identify with and respect the architectural quality and character of the surrounding development. I note the appellant’s view that the Council has wrongly applied guidance written for roof extensions to Victorian era properties, taken from its supplementary planning document ‘Residential Extensions and Alterations’ 2009 (SPD). 6. However, part 2 of the SPD makes clear that during the twentieth century large parts of the borough’s urban fabric was renewed, and that Hackney has development from all periods. Considering the SPD alongside the specific policies cited above, I do not consider that its guidance for roof extensions to be designed to complement the individual house and the existing streetscape, and to not disrupt the existing roof form, is only applicable to more traditional period buildings. As the existing stair hoods are not perceived, the terrace effectively appears as a uniform flat-roofed group, and to introduce an addition of the scale, siting and design proposed would not respect the rhythm of the building group, as required by DMLP Policy DM1. 7. I note the appellant’s interpretation that the Council does not oppose the form of the extension in terms of its relationship with the design and form of the host property, and that the Council’s pre-application advice was positive. However, whilst in isolation the proposal may respect the individual building, this does not address its impact on the terrace as a whole. 8. The appellant has suggested that the rear wall of the extension could be set in from the wall below by 0.25 metres. However, this distance would have negligible effect in mitigating the visual impact of the addition. Although views of the rear of the building would be confined to the closed environment of the surrounding properties, the increased height of the building would appear overly large and obtrusive in such views. 9. The appellant has identified planning permissions for sites elsewhere in the borough, on different types of building, but limited detail has been supplied of the developments and their site-specific circumstances. As such, there is little information on which to make a comparison. Moreover, it would appear that these ‘hidden’ mansard roofs are visible, now built. An unintended consequence of those developments would not therefore warrant acceptance of the proposal. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property in so far as it forms part of the terrace, and the wider street scene. This would be contrary to the overarching design aims of Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan, CS Policy 24, DMLP Policy DM 1, and aspects of the SPD. 11. For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR