Erection of a single storey ground floor wrap around rear extension including a Sukkah rooflight Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 February 2026 by J Reed MPlan Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002241 85 Alkham Road, Hackney, London N16 6XD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Seidenfeld against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney. • The application Ref is 2025/2089. • The development proposed is erection of a single storey ground floor wrap around rear extension including a Sukkah rooflight Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to outlook and light; and the personal circumstances of the occupiers of the appeal property. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 4. The appeal building is a two-storey mid terrace dwelling. It has a pitched roof ground floor projection abutting what appears to be a more historic two storey outrigger. Beyond this is a modest brick single storey projection which houses a toilet. Others in the terrace mirror this arrangement to the rear with two-storey outriggers and single storey pitched roofed projections creating a design symmetry and rhythm which contributes positively to the area’s character and appearance. 5. The proposals include the removal of the two existing single storey elements, to be replaced by the proposed extension. The proposed ground floor extension would wrap around the side and rear of the two-storey rear outrigger. With its partially flat, partially pitched roof and single storey form, the proposed addition would have a low profile at the rear of the property. Nevertheless, the proposal would extend across almost the full width of the plot and infill the space to the side of the outrigger and beyond the existing rear elevations. Appeal Decision 6002241 2 6. This arrangement would alter the traditional ‘L’ shape of the existing dwelling and result in the loss of the modest pitched roofed rear projection, a characteristic feature to the rear of the terraced properties. As a result of its depth and width, the proposal would unduly interrupt the characteristic rhythm of the rear terrace created by the paired two storey rear projections, the regular gaps left between them and the largely consistent single-storey pitched roof extensions. In doing so, the character of the appeal property and its relationship with the terrace would be harmfully altered and its contribution to the local area diminished. Consequently, the proposal would not respond to local character and context. 7. I accept that the rear extension would accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents Residential Extensions and Alterations (2009) (the SPD) in terms of the use of matching materials and its height. However, its depth, footprint and roof design would conflict with the SPD, which seeks for single storey rear extensions to be 3 metres in depth, retain 50% of the appeal dwelling’s original garden and to match the host dwelling in their design. While this is guidance only, it reflects the need for extensions to be well related to the existing dwelling. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. As such, it would conflict with Policies D1, D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies LP1 and LP17 of the Hackney Local Plan (2020). Together, these policies aim to ensure that development responds to local character and is compatible with the existing townscape. It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that development should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area. Living conditions 9. The SPD recommends that a ‘45 degree rule’ is used as a guide in assessing the acceptability of extensions in relation to daylight, sunlight and outlook. This would appear to be breached in relation to both the rear window in the main part of No 83 and the rear window of the outrigger of No 87 at ground floor level. It is clear from the SPD however that this is a general rule only, and that the design of each case must be considered when assessing the actual effects of an extension. 10. The appeal scheme would result in a very long wall against the shared boundary with No 83 owing to the extent of the proposed development’s projection from the rear of the appeal dwelling. This, coupled with its height and blank, featureless appearance would dominate views from the rear window closest to the boundary at No 83. The proposed extension would result in a strong sense of enclosure to this window when coupled with the existing effect from No 83’s two storey outrigger. This cumulative visual dominance would unacceptably reduce the quality of outlook from both the neighbour’s window and the garden space to the immediate rear of No 83, to the detriment of the living conditions of its occupiers. 11. The ground floor window in the rear of the main part of No 83 is already restricted in terms of daylight and sunlight by the outrigger of the host property. Given the height, depth and proximity of the proposal, it would further restrict light reaching this window, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers. Whilst I note the presence of the existing boundary fencing, I do not consider this to mitigate the harm I have identified, as the proposal would be taller than the fence. Appeal Decision 6002241 3 12. Turning to No 87, the proposal would result in a several metre deep single storey extension against the common boundary. The depth of the extension would be slightly beyond that recommended in the SPD, however No 87 currently enjoys a relatively open outlook and reasonable access to sunlight and daylight, given the constraints of the terrace and small gardens. 13. Due to the depth and siting of the proposal it would be visible from the rear windows and garden of No 87 but would limit the outlook from these areas only slightly. Therefore, it would not be so dominant or obtrusive as to have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers. 14. The orientation of the properties and the fact that the proposal would be taller than the existing fence would result in some additional shading of the garden of No 87 in the middle of the day. However, the extent and duration of this would be limited due to its height and mainly flat roof. There is no substantiated evidence before me that the proposal would result in a harmful loss of daylight to No 87. Consequently, the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of No 87 with regard to outlook and light. 15. Therefore, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 83 Alkham Road with regard to outlook and light but would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 87 in these respects. Nevertheless, the proposal would conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy LP2 of the Hackney Local Plan (2020) which both seek, amongst other things, for all new development to be appropriate to its location and designed to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours. Personal Circumstances 16. I note that as part of the development a sukkah rooflight is proposed, which is a feature designed to be opened up during the Jewish festival of Sukkot. As a result, I consider it likely that the proposed extension could have a religious as well as a housing purpose. Therefore, I have had regard to my duty under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Religion is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. 17. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reiterates the well-established principle that planning permission runs with the land1. Where development would not normally be permitted, it may be justified on the basis of who would benefit from the permission, but only in exceptional circumstances. 18. I do not have any detailed evidence of the appellant’s circumstances or the effect that a sukkah rooflight would have on their life and any religious practice. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would result in benefits to the occupiers of the dwelling beyond the additional living space and light that it would create. Nor has it been demonstrated that these benefits could only be achieved by extending in this way, with the resulting harm. Consequently, this significantly limits the weight I give this matter. 1 PPG paragraph ref ID: 21a-015-20140306 Appeal Decision 6002241 4 19. The appeal proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area as well as the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would conflict with the policies of the development plan, and I afford this considerable weight. I therefore find that based on the evidence before me, the personal circumstances do not outweigh the harm caused by the extension or justify a grant of permission. Other Matters 20. An approved extension highlighted by the appellant at 95 Windus Road2 is similar in its wraparound design to the appeal scheme. However, it is in a different and significantly altered terrace, unlike the appeal terrace which is generally unaltered at the rear and retains its characteristic features. No 95 is also an end terrace property with a different orientation and relationship with its neighbours to that of the appeal scheme. Therefore, I do not consider its circumstances to be sufficiently similar to the appeal scheme before me to justify the harm I have identified. 21. In regard to the approved scheme at 58 Alkham Road referenced by the appellant, I have not been provided with details or made aware of the specific circumstances which led to its approval. It therefore has not been demonstrated that there are sufficient similarities with this proposal or its context that it would alter my conclusions on the main issues. 22. The appellant also refers to a fallback position of erecting a single storey rear extension under the allowances of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Specifically, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A. There is no evidence before me that such a position has been formally established for the appeal site, or an alternative scheme setting out how this might be achieved. Nevertheless, permitted development rights as described by the appellant would only allow a 3m deep extension from each rear wall of the dwelling, which would be considerably smaller than the proposal before me. Therefore, the impacts of such a scheme would not be comparable to the proposal, and the fallback position does not justify the harm I have identified. Conclusion and Recommendation 23. The proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 24. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR 2 2021/0326