Erection of a side and a rear roof extension and insertion of roof lights to the front roof slope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 July 2026 by H Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010791 47 Osbaldeston Road, Hackney N16 7DL • 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 Jamie Brennan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney. • The application Ref is 2026/0457. • The development proposed is erection of a side and a rear roof extension and insertion of roof lights to the front roof slope. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a side and a rear roof extension and insertion of roof lights to the front roof slope at 47 Osbaldeston Road, Hackney N16 7DL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2026/0457, 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 plan: N16-7DL-47-02-F1 - Proposed Plans, Section, Elevations, Location Plan and Block Plan 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match the details provided on the Application Form dated 3 March 2026 and suitably match those used in the existing building. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Jamie Brennan against the Council of the London Borough of Hackney. This is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The Stamford Hill Area Action Plan (the SHAAP) is an emerging development plan document. The evidence before me indicates that the SHAAP has been consulted upon but that it is the subject of objections. Consequently, the Council has set out that the SHAAP is a matter of limited weight. I have no reason to disagree. Appeal Decision 6010791 2 4. On 17 August 2026, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. In making my decision, I have had regard to the Framework and any comments in respect to it submitted by the appeal parties. 5. The appeal site is situated within the Northwold and Cazenove Conservation Area. As a result, in making my decision, I have had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Northwold and Cazenove Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons 7. The CA holds considerable significance due to its extensive range of Victorian terraced dwellings. This illustrates Hackney’s 19th century development and built heritage, whilst the housing stock exhibits variety and distinctive and decorative designs yet, overall, considerable cohesion. The prevalence of tree-lined streets and many mature front gardens provides the CA with verdant qualities as well. Owing to this character and appearance, and the evidence it provides of the history of residential development in this part of London, the significance of the CA principally stems from its architectural and historic interest. 8. The appeal property is a traditionally designed terraced house. Incorporating design features such as a roof turret, bay windows, brick banding and stuccoed detailing the appeal property displays the architectural quality and character which typifies the CA as a whole. For this reason, it makes a positive contribution to the CA’s character and appearance. 9. More widely, despite alterations to many properties on Osbaldeston Road, the recurring bay projections and roof turrets, combined with consistent brickwork and stucco detailing and the presence of numerous street trees, create a cohesive and harmonious streetscape. 10. The appeal property’s main roof has a hipped form. The proposed development would alter this, and it would introduce a partly flat-roofed addition. However, the extension would incorporate a front roof slope that would sympathetically reflect the existing hipped profile. Furthermore, like many other properties on Osbaldeston Road, the appeal property has a flat-roofed rear projection. The proposed flat-roofed elements would therefore remain in keeping with elements of the appeal property’s existing roofscape and those exhibited by neighbouring properties. 11. The extension would be deeply recessed within the roof, set well back from the property's front elevation. At the rear, it would also be positioned above eaves level. The uppermost part of the extension would also sit below the main roof ridge. As a result, given its recessed design and the substantial areas of roof that would remain undeveloped, the extension would not appear prominent or dominate the property's roofscape. 12. Although, like the appeal property, some neighbouring houses have retained their original roof designs, roof extensions are nevertheless prevalent on Osbaldeston Road. This includes roof extensions on nearby properties, and some of those Appeal Decision 6010791 3 permitted elsewhere on the street have a similar design to that proposed in this case. Therefore, the extension proposed would also be in keeping with established development in the area. 13. Overall, whilst the development would partly remodel the roofscape, it would remain respectful to the property's character and appearance. Importantly, it would not detract from key traditional design features that typify both the appeal property and Osbaldeston Road and which make such strong positive contributions to the cohesive and harmonious character and appearance displayed within the street scene. Chief among these features are the bay projections, roof turrets, and consistent brickwork and stucco detailing. 14. For these reasons, the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property would be acceptable and the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved. 15. As a result, the development complies with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (the LP) and Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan (the HLP). LP Policy HC1 and HLP Policy LP3 are each concerned with development and heritage assets. Together, and amongst other matters, Policies HC1 and LP3 advocate that developments should seek to conserve the significance of heritage assets and avoid harm to them taking place. Meanwhile, LP Policy D3 and HLP Policy LP1 seek to ensure that developments are of high quality and positively respond to local character, context and distinctiveness. 16. Furthermore, Hackney’s Residential Extension and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2025 (the SPD) provides relevant design guidance. The development would depart from some of the SPD’s more prescriptive criteria, and it would include a side roof extension visible from the front of the appeal property which the SPD generally advocates against. However, equally, when considering the acceptability of development, the SPD also sets out that site context and the presence of established development in the area should be taken into account. Since I have found that the development would be respectful to the appeal property and that the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved, overall, I conclude that the development would comply with the SPD. 17. Finally, since the proposal would conserve those elements of the CA which make a positive contribution to the area, the development complies with Policy HE9 of the Framework as well. Conditions 18. I have imposed the standard time limit condition. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the proposed plan is necessary in the interests of certainty. In the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the appeal property and the CA, a condition is also needed to secure the appropriate use of materials. The Council’s appeal form indicates no other conditions are necessary, and I have no reason to disagree. Conclusion 19. The development accords with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I Appeal Decision 6010791 4 conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above. H Jones INSPECTOR