Additional storey to the footprint of the original dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 May 2026 By SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007490 20 Speldhurst Road, Hackney, London E9 7EH • 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 Pete Jenning [of SMITHS] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney. • The application Ref is 2025/2480. • The development proposed is additional storey to the footprint of the original dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for additional storey to the footprint of the original dwellinghouse at 20 Speldhurst Road, Hackney, London E9 7EH in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference 2025/2480 and the plans submitted with it, 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: A-E-301, A-P-001, A-P-101, A-S 201. 3) Prior to the construction of the additional storey, full details, including samples, of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the additional storey, including brickwork and glazing, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description on the planning application form in the banner heading above but have removed reference to elements that are not in themselves development. 3. The site benefits from an extant prior approval and lawful development certificate for a similar form of upward extension1. Whilst there has been some concern raised regarding the historic removal of permitted development rights, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that either the prior approval or lawful development certificate has been revoked, quashed or otherwise rendered incapable of implementation. I therefore attach significant weight to those approvals as realistic fallback positions in respect of the scale of upward extension at the site. 1 2024/1308 and 2024/1908. Appeal Decision 6007490 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling located on the western side of Speldhurst Road at its junction with Jackson Close. The dwelling forms part of a late-20th-century residential estate characterised by modest brick-built houses of varying heights and forms arranged within an informal and staggered townscape composition. In contrast, the eastern side of Speldhurst Road is largely defined by earlier Victorian terraces and villas of a more traditional architectural character. The appeal dwelling itself is of limited architectural distinction, exhibiting a simple form and largely restrained detailing typical of the wider estate. 6. The proposal would introduce an additional storey above the existing dwelling and beneath a gable end roof form. This would be substantially consistent with the scale approved under the extant Class AA prior approval scheme. 7. The proposed upper level would incorporate a contemporary architectural treatment to the front elevation, including vertically expressed masonry piers, recessed fenestration and ribbed brick detailing. Well-considered contemporary design may preserve, and in some circumstances enhance, local character where it remains proportionate, legible and responsive to its context. 8. The appeal property occupies a visually transitional corner position adjacent to the taller built form at 1 Jackson Close within a townscape characterised by staggered building lines, varied roof forms and a degree of variation in building height. In views along Speldhurst Road and Jackson Close, the proposal would therefore be perceived within the context of an already varied pattern of development rather than as an isolated or inappropriate feature. Moreover, the overall height, scale and envelope of the proposal would closely reflect the extant fallback position. In those circumstances, the additional storey would not appear excessively bulky, overbearing or unduly prominent within the street scene. 9. The proposed upper storey would adopt a more contemporary architectural expression than the existing form below. However, contemporary design does not of itself equate to poor design. The proposed roof form would reflect surrounding roofscape characteristics, whilst the recessed fenestration and vertical articulation would assist in reducing the perceived visual bulk of the extension. Taken together, these features would provide a high quality, coherent architectural treatment to the additional storey. 10. The Council expresses concern that the additional storey would appear visually disconnected from the host dwelling. Whilst the extension would adopt a contemporary architectural expression, I am not persuaded that this would result in an incongruous relationship. The continuation of the main facade plane, the proportional alignment of openings, and the continued use of masonry across both the front and flank elevations would provide sufficient visual continuity between the existing and proposed elements such that the building would continue to read as a unified whole. Appeal Decision 6007490 3 11. Furthermore, the surrounding area does not derive its character from strict architectural uniformity. It exhibits a layered and evolving townscape in which alterations, roof extensions, varied building heights and differing architectural expressions contribute to its visual interest. Against that context, the proposal would not appear incongruous or alien, but rather as a contemporary continuation of the area’s established pattern of gradual architectural change. 12. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy LP1 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020) and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), which amongst other things seek high quality contextual design. For the same reasons, the proposal accords with underlying objectives of the guidance contained within the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extension and Alterations (2025) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) relating to achieving well designed places. Other Matters 13. The appeal site lies outside, but close to, the Victoria Park Conservation Area (the CA). The Victoria Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2012) identifies the area’s significance as deriving in part from its varied Victorian and later residential townscape, including its diversity of form, building height and architectural expression. The Council has not raised harm to the character or appearance of the CA as a reason for refusal. Having regard to the evidence before me and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree. Conditions 14. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the tests of paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, I agree that a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition requiring details of external materials, including brickwork, to closely match the existing masonry, is reasonable and necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. I have slightly reworded the Council’s suggested condition for clarity. 15. The Council has suggested a condition requiring the provision of bird boxes. However, the suggested wording is imprecise as to the location of any such boxes. In addition, having regard to the height and nature of the proposed works, it is not clear that the requirement could be practically incorporated into the development. I am therefore not satisfied that the condition would be reasonable or sufficiently precise, and I have not imposed it. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR