Upwards roof extension / additional storey to create additional living accommodation, rear terrace area, and all associated works

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 21 July 2026 by Beverley Wilders BA (Hons) PgDURP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 August 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6005244 59 Myddelton Square, Islington, London EC1R 1XX • 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 and Mrs Haran and Charlotte Jackson against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref is P2025/2681/FUL. • The development proposed is upwards roof extension / additional storey to create additional living accommodation, rear terrace area, and all associated works. Appeal B Ref: 6005245 59 Myddelton Square, Islington, London EC1R 1XX • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Haran and Charlotte Jackson against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref is P2025/2682/LBC • The works proposed are upwards roof extension / additional storey to create additional living accommodation, rear terrace area, and all associated works. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Decisions Appeal A: 6005244 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B: 6005245 2. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. The description of development and works used in the headings above has been taken from the application form. The Council used a different description on its decision notices. However, I have seen no evidence of the appellants’ agreement to an amended description and have therefore determined the appeals based on the original description. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: For Appeals A & B 5. Whether the proposals would preserve Numbers 58 to 62, 63 to 65 and 66 Myddelton Square and attached railings and gatepiers, a Grade II Listed Building, Appeal Decision 6005244 & 6005245 2 or its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses; and For Appeal A 6. Whether the proposal would preserve the character or appearance of New River Conservation Area. Reasons Special Interest and Significance 7. Located in a roadside position, opposite Myddelton Square garden, in the New River Conservation Area, 59 Myddelton Square forms part of a terrace of properties (Nos 58 to 62, 63 to 65 and 66) included on the statutory list at Grade II1. 8. The properties are described in the list description as a terrace of nine houses, some now flats, four storeys with basement at NW corner of Myddelton Square. 1824-1827 by William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor to the New River Estate. Regarding the roof, the listing describes Welsh-slate gabled roofs, noting dormers to nos. 62-65, no. 64 mansard roof and brick party-wall stacks. The listing also notes that Myddelton Square is the largest square in the area aside from Finsbury Square and that it is considered by some to be Islington’s best and most important adornment of the New River Estate, and stylistically, it is the most cohesive in the district. 9. The front elevation of the terrace has a broadly uniform appearance, notwithstanding that there is some degree of variation, including to fanlights, first floor railings and roof form. This high degree of architectural uniformity contributes to the significance of the Listed Building. The rear elevation of the terrace is less formal and from the evidence before me, displays a lower degree of uniformity with the presence of alterations and extensions, some of which, including at No.59 incorporate a large amount of glazing and are more modern in appearance. 10. Insofar as is relevant to the appeal proposals, the significance and special interest of the listed building derives from its unified architectural form and appearance, particularly to the front elevation, its historical association with William Chadwell Mylne and its contribution to the form and appearance of Myddelton Square. 11. The New River Conservation Area (CA) is described in the Council’s New River (CA02) Conservation Area Design Guidelines January 2002 (CADG) as one of the largest in Islington and one of outstanding importance. It mainly comprises late 18th and early 19th century residential estates built by the New River Company, the Brewers Company and the Lloyd Baker Estate. These include some of the first terraces and squares in the Borough. The CADG describes the area as having a rare quality and consistency of scale, materials, design and detailing which require careful and sensitive policies for its protection and enhancement. It is these features that contribute to its significance. 1 List entry number 1195687 Appeal Decision 6005244 & 6005245 3 The proposals 12. The proposals are for a roof extension in the form of a mansard roof incorporating two dormers to the front and a large, glazed door opening onto a roof terrace enclosed by a glass balustrade to the rear. Internally the proposals would result in the loss of a bedroom and the provision of a top floor living room of greater floorspace necessitating the removal of existing internal walls and minor alterations to the existing staircase. The effect of the proposals 13. The host building has a slate, pitched roof, with two rooflights in the rear roof slope. The roof is set behind a parapet and between two chimney stacks. This pitched roof form is consistent with the majority of properties comprising the listed building, with some variation at each end of the terrace. Several properties have rooflights in the rear roof slopes with the presence of modest sized single front dormers at Nos 62, 63 & 65 and a mansard roof incorporating front windows at No 64. A metal guard rail is in place to the front edge of the parapet at Nos 62-65 and this together with existing aerials and satellite dishes provides some visual clutter at roof level. 14. It appears from the evidence that the pitched roof to the listed building is not original and that it replaced the former butterfly roof which was bomb damaged during the second world war. 15. Notwithstanding the presence of existing roof alterations and adornments to the listed building, it nevertheless retains a largely consistent roof form, particularly at the northern end. Though the host building is four storeys in height and the proposed mansard would be set back from the parapet and down from the ridgeline, the roof extension would nevertheless be a significant addition to the roof which would materially alter its form and appearance. The position of the host building means that the front elevation of the mansard would clearly be visible in views from the east along Myddelton Square and the altered roof form would be at odds with the prevailing roof form of the listed building. Given the prominent and important position of the listed building within the CA, forming part of one of its most important squares, this would result in a harmful effect on the appearance of the CA, notwithstanding the presence of other roof alterations within it. 16. In reaching this view I acknowledge the height of the listed building which limits near views of its roof, the important role that the architectural features of its frontage play in contributing to its appearance and significance and the fact that the parapet of the building would not be altered by the proposals. However, for the reasons stated, this would not mitigate the harm that would result from the proposals. 17. Although views of the rear elevation of the roof extension would be limited to views from surrounding properties, this does not detract from the fact that the roof form of the listed building would be fundamentally altered. The visual effect of the mansard on the rear elevation would be improved by using tiles rather than brick but not to such an extent that the altered proposals would preserve significance and special interest, particularly given the large, wide opening proposed to give access to the rear roof terrace. The proportions of this opening are at odds with other original openings within the host building, all of which have a vertical rather than a horizontal emphasis. Though I note the arched window detail used, I do not Appeal Decision 6005244 & 6005245 4 consider that this is appropriate in this context nor that this or the existence of a modern, glazed rear ground floor extension mitigates the incongruous appearance of the large, wide opening proposed. 18. The proposed rear roof terrace, facilitated by the roof extension, would be set within the existing roofscape, behind the existing parapet and between the existing chimney stacks. It would be enclosed by a frameless glass balustrade, the details of which are not dissimilar to existing balustrades on the rear elevations of other nearby properties, visible from the rear of the host building, including along Claremont Square to the north and north west. Although there is evidence of roof terraces and glazed balustrades nearby, none appear to be present within the listed building. Consequently, and notwithstanding the existence of the ground floor rear glazed extensions to the host building and neighbouring property No 60, the proposed rear terrace and balustrade would be at odds with the existing form and appearance of the listed building and would fail to preserve its significance and special interest. Their position to the rear of host building and surrounding development and landscaping does however mean that the rear elevation of the roof extension, rear terrace and glazed balustrade would not be prominent within the CA and would likely only be visible from surrounding properties. 19. My attention has been drawn to the fact that permission was previously granted for a roof extension at No 60, though this was never implemented and to the existence of roof extensions and roof terraces including balustrades within nearby streets, including on listed buildings. Whilst I have had regard to these other examples and noted them during my site visit, I have limited details about them and any permissions granted for them. Though they form part of the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the CA, they do not diminish the harm that would result from the proposals as set out above, and none appear directly comparable in terms of context and detail. I therefore attach limited weight to these other examples and to the previous permission at No 60 as this has now lapsed and is no longer capable of being implemented. I have assessed the proposals before me on their own merits. 20. The roof extension would require the removal and re-modelling of the existing roof. Notwithstanding the Council’s concerns regarding a loss of original roof structure and historic fabric, as stated, it appears from the evidence before me that the existing pitched roof is not original. At my site visit I noted that the internal walls to be removed within the loft floor also appear to be modern and consequently I have no concerns regarding loss of historic fabric in this regard. In any event, the appellants’ stated intention is to re-use materials where possible. There is no evidence regarding the staircase to the loft floor, though it appears from the plans that this is to be retained in situ, albeit it that it would be opened up more following the removal of existing walling. The proposals do not appear to involve any alterations to the plan form of the host building. 21. Taking all of the above into consideration and mindful of the duties imposed by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I conclude that the significance and special interest of the Grade II Listed Building, or its setting, and the character and appearance of the CA would not be preserved by the proposals. Appeal Decision 6005244 & 6005245 5 Other Matters 22. It appears from the evidence that the host building is located near to several other listed buildings within the CA. As with the listed building the subject of this appeal, the significance of these buildings, insofar as is relevant to these appeals, derives from their architectural and historic interest. The Council has raised no concerns in respect of the effect of the proposals on any nearby listed buildings and having regard to the scale, nature and location of the proposals, I concur with that view. 23. I also acknowledge that there was some support for the proposals from an interested party. Planning Balance and Conclusion 24. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) anticipates that once a finding of harm to the significance of a heritage asset, such as a listed building or conservation area, has been reached, then the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. In this case, I conclude that the proposals would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II Listed Building at Nos 58 to 62, 63 to 65 and 66 Myddelton Square, or its setting and the CA when considered in the context of their significance as a whole. I note that the appellants acknowledge that there would be harm resulting from the proposals. Given the scale and nature of the proposals and the scale of the listed building and CA, I consider that the level of harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial. 25. Nevertheless, paragraph 212 the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation irrespective of whether any harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Moreover, at paragraph 215 the Framework states that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. Such benefits could include circumstances where a proposal would secure the optimal viable use of a building. 26. The appellants have referred to several benefits that would result from the proposals and I have had regard to these. These include that the proposals would help to tackle damp and water ingress issues in the attic room and would improve passive airflow and thermal performance. Whilst photographic evidence of previous damp issues has been provided, at my site visit I saw no evidence of damp or water ingress, though did note that the attic room only has one rooflight. Alterations to the existing roof and provision of additional sources of ventilation are likely to reduce any damp, improve thermal performance and reduce energy usage and I give moderate weight to this public benefit which, along with improved access to the roof, would also help to ensure ongoing preservation of the heritage asset. 27. Any other necessary repairs that would be carried out in association with the proposals whilst welcomed, are not dependent on the proposals and should form part of ongoing building maintenance and management. I do not therefore attach any weight to them as public benefits. The proposals would result in fire safety improvements by providing a more accessible means of escape. I attach moderate weight to this public benefit. 28. The host property is in use as a single family dwelling with rear garden and the proposals would provide an enlarged attic room with attached roof terrace to be used as a living room rather than the existing en-suite bedroom. At my site visit I saw that the existing dwelling is well maintained and there is no evidence to suggest Appeal Decision 6005244 & 6005245 6 that without the proposals the dwelling would be more likely to become vacant or be neglected. The submitted plans indicate that the proposals would reduce the number of bedrooms in the dwelling and in any event, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the size of the existing attic bedroom is sub-standard. At my site visit I noted that it can accommodate a double bed and has an en-suite bathroom. I therefore attach no more than limited weight to any improvements to the suitability of the host building as a family home that the proposals would bring. 29. The proposals, if permitted, would also deliver a number of economic benefits resulting from the employment of trades and services and through the purchase of materials. Given the scale of the proposals, I attach limited weight to this public benefit. Additionally the proposals would potentially add to the understanding of the host building and the listed building through further surveys and investigations and similarly I attach limited weight to this benefit given the scale of the proposals and the fact that the resulting increase in understanding is unknown at this stage. 30. For the reasons stated above, the proposals would not result in the optimum viable use of the building. Moreover, whilst there would be public benefits associated with the proposals, I attach no more than moderate weight to them and they do not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the heritage assets, to which I attach great weight. No clear and convincing justification has been demonstrated to justify the harm that has been identified. 31. The proposals therefore conflict with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (March 2021), policies PLAN1, DH1 and DH2 of the Islington Local Plan – Strategic and Development Management Policies (September 2023) and to relevant guidance in the Framework, in the Council’s Urban Design Guide (January 2017) and in the CADG. These policies and this guidance, amongst other things, require development to be of a high quality, to make a positive contribution to local character, to conserve or enhance heritage assets including the New River Conservation Area, and where there is harm for it to have clear and convincing justification. 32. For the above reasons and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed. Beverley Wilders INSPECTOR