First floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2026 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004365 223 Ball’s Pond Road, Islington, London N1 4BE • 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 Josh McCarthy against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref is P2025/1412/FUL. • The development proposed is first floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene, and the effect on the living conditions of the nearest occupiers of Woodford Mews, with regard to sunlight and daylight, and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a part single, part double storey semi-detached dwelling of contemporary design set back from the busy Ball’s Pond Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character with buildings of varied scales, including mews properties and tower blocks. The Council indicates that the appeal property was approved as part of the regeneration of the Dover Court Estate and adjacent lands. 4. Policy PLAN1 of the Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies (2023) (SDMP) requires all forms of development to be of a high quality and to make a positive contribution to local character. Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) sets out how good design should be delivered. 5. The proposal involves extending the upper storey to the side and rear so that it would largely infill the full roof area above the ground floor. I note that the upper storeys of the appeal property and the adjoining neighbouring property were Appeal Decision 6004365 2 designed to relieve visual bulk seen from the surrounding public realm. From my own inspection, there is a good degree of uniformity apparent due to the size, appearance and matching materials of the properties as a whole and the upper storeys in particular. Moreover, the gaps created by the smaller upper storeys provides openness and visual relief as well as a rhythm across the built forms. Despite the presence of trees and other planting in front of the properties and their setback from the road frontage, they are nonetheless prominent within the street scene. 6. Extending the upper storey to the side would unbalance the uniformity that currently exists and would add undue bulk to the host dwelling, which would be readily apparent by contrast with the neighbouring dwelling. Furthermore, bringing development at this level much closer to the adjacent properties in Woodford Mews would result in a cramped appearance and would harm the openness and rhythm across the street-facing frontage. 7. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Consequently, it is contrary to Policy PLAN1 of the SDMP and to Policy D4 of the London Plan, as described. Living conditions 8. The sideways extension would bring the upper storey closer to the rear elevations and gardens of the nearest properties on Woodford Mews. The appellant has provided an independent assessment of the extension’s effects on daylight and sunlight for these neighbouring dwellings. The assessment finds minimal effect and no resultant harm from the proposal. 9. From my own inspection, the position of the extension means that the principal openings to the rear of the two mews dwellings, in the form of patio doors, would not directly face the extension, but would be off-set to either side of it. The upper and ground floor windows that do face directly towards the extension are of limited size and include obscured glass. Consequently, I consider that the effects of the extension are likely to be minimal. Similarly, due to the orientation of the properties, any overshadowing, particularly to the gardens, would be limited and not materially harmful. 10. The rear gardens of the mews properties are of limited depth with the ground floor side elevation of the appeal property directly next to the garden boundaries. As well as reducing the bulk of the upper storey seen from the public realm, the off-set from the side boundary is important in mitigating the effects of a two storey elevation close to the rear gardens of the neighbouring dwellings. 11. By bringing the upper storey much closer to the adjacent gardens, the extension would be experienced from the gardens as a dominant and overbearing feature. As such, it would have a harmful effect on the use and enjoyment of these small external amenity areas. 12. Therefore, based on these findings, I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the nearest occupiers of Woodford Mews, with regard to outlook. As such, it is contrary to Policy PLAN1 of Appeal Decision 6004365 3 the SDMP, which requires that a good level of amenity must be provided in new development, including relating to over-dominance and a sense of enclosure and outlook. Other Matters 13. I acknowledge that the proposed extension is intended to create additional living space. However, this is not sufficient reason to overcome the harm and conflict with development plan policies that I have found would result from the proposal. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR