31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 January 2022 by R Morgan BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 February 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/21/3281045 31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Arev Investments Pty Ltd against the decision of London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref P2021/0903/FUL, dated 24 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 7 June 2021. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension in the form of a glazed link corridor. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension in the form of a glazed link corridor at 31A Cressida Road, LONDON, N19 3JN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P2021/0903/FUL, dated 24 March 2021, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A01 B – Location plan A02 B – Existing site plan A03 B – Proposed ground floor plan A04 B – Roof plan A05 B – Detailed plan A06 B, A07 B and A17 B – Sections A08 B – Front elevation A09 B, A10 B – Internal elevations A11 B – Courtyard area A12 B; A13 B; A14 B; A15 B and A16 B – Views 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan nos. A05 B, A07 B, A09 B and A10 B, and retained as such thereafter. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the original application form contained a lengthy and detailed summary which also sought to justify the proposal. In the banner heading and decision above, I have instead used the succinct description of development used by the Council in its decision notice. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V5570/W/21/3281045 3. Inaccuracies in the original drawings were identified during consultation on the planning application. Corrected plans were submitted at the appeal stage, and I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the revised plans. 4. The appellant has acknowledged that the flat at 31A Cressida Road (No. 31A) has been created without fully adhering to the plans approved under planning permission ref P060496, as subsequently amended under P060496(MA05). I have considered the appeal proposal on the basis of the situation as it currently exists, but am satisfied that my decision would not undermine the Council’s ability to address these matters separately, should it chose to do so. Main Issue 5. The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the host building, wider terrace and the Whitehall Park Conservation Area; and ii) whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for occupants of No. 31A, with particular regard to private outdoor amenity space. Reasons Character and appearance 6.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Cressida Road forms part of the ‘Shakespeare’ area of the Whitehall Park Conservation Area (CA), which is characterised by streets of modest sized terraces dating from the late nineteenth century, with attractive decorative plaster features around the front bays and porches. Whilst the houses are not identical, the overall impression is one of uniformity, with the small differences in design providing interest in the streetscene. The architectural consistency of the terraces, and the extent to which original features have been retained, contribute to the significance of this part of the CA. 7. Number 31 Cressida Road (No. 31) is the end property in a long terrace which stretches to the junction with Parolles Road. The property is wider than others in the row, with a garage style door in the front elevation providing access to a rear courtyard and single storey brick outbuilding, which may have originally been used as a stables or garage. The property has been converted into 3 flats, with No. 31A being accessed through the garage style door and occupying the rear outbuilding. 8. The rear elevation of No. 31 is simpler in appearance, without the decorative features found on the frontage.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision The narrow courtyard linking the main house to the garden flat is physically separated from the remaining garden area to the rear of No. 31. The small size of the space, which is contained by fairly high brick walls, gives the courtyard an enclosed, intimate feel. 9. The proposed glazed corridor would occupy approximately half the width of the courtyard, for most of its length, extending to the full width for a short section adjacent to the main part of the flat. The structure would abut the external boundary wall, but would not exceed it in height, thus maintaining the existing containment of the space and limiting the visual impact of the proposed development from its immediate neighbour on Parolles Road. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V5570/W/21/3281045 10. The proposed materials and contemporary appearance would not reflect the surrounding buildings, but the design would be not unattractive. The Islington Urban Design Guide and the Conservation Area Guidelines for Whitehall Park both recognise that there are circumstances in which modern materials may be acceptable, including within conservation areas. The courtyard area already has a contemporary appearance owing to the design and materials used in the doors and paving, and the proposed link would not compete with the surrounding historic fabric, which is dominated by walls formed of London stock brick. 11. Furthermore, although the proposed extension would provide a physical link between the two buildings, the difference in materials would ensure that their original, separate form was still clearly evident, with the subordinance of the rear outbuilding being retained. The continuation of the existing green roof over the part of proposed link which would connect to the existing flat would help to assimilate the extension into the existing built form, as well as limiting the extent of glazing. 12.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision The proposed extension would not be visible from either Cressida Road or Parolles Road, and surrounding built form would largely screen it from the rear windows of nearby houses. Its enclosed position at the very end of the terrace, with restricted visibility from all but the nearest properties, means it would not be viewed in the context of the wider terrace, and would not cause undue harm to it. 13. From those limited parts of the private realm from which the link would be visible, primarily rear windows of the flats within No. 31, it would be seen as a narrow, lightweight structure within a space which is already significantly enclosed by brick walls. Its modest height and narrow form would prevent the proposed extension from appearing out of scale or overly dominant in relation to the host dwelling. 14. The extent of the original garden area to the rear of No. 31 is unclear, but the two storey outrigger appears to be part of the original building, and it is reasonable to assume that the outbuilding also formed part of the early development.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision The planning history suggests that the outbuildng may have been enlarged when the garden flat was created, and the proposed link would lead to a further modest reduction in the open area to the rear of No. 31. However, it seems likely that the area to the rear of No. 31 was never particularly large, and the Council’s suggestion that the majority of the original garden would be covered with extensions seems unfounded. 15. I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling, wider terrace and Whitehall Park CA. I have found no conflict with Policies CS8 and CS9 of Islington Core Strategy 2011 (CS), which aim to protect and enhance the character of Islington’s built and historic environment, or with the design objectives contained in Policies DM2.1 and DM2.3 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies 2013 (DMP). 16. Similarly, the proposal does not conflict with section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, including the requirement in paragraph 199 that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V5570/W/21/3281045 Living conditions 17. The courtyard separating the two parts of No. 31A forms the only area of private outdoor amenity space available to occupiers of the flat. The proposed extension would reduce this area from around 21m2 to 10.3m2. As a result, it would be less than the 15m2 which DMP Policy DM3.5C requires for ground floor 1-2 person dwellings. This policy relates to new dwellings, so strictly speaking does not apply here, but the Council has confirmed that the amount of amenity space was considered as part of the original application to create the flat at No. 31A. It is important that subsequent changes do not erode the standard of living provided, so the amenity space standard is of relevance to the current appeal. 18. The aim of Policy DM3.5C is to ensure that occupiers of new dwellings have access to outdoor space for outside eating, clothes drying or sitting with visitors, in an area of London which has a high density of development and shortfalls in open space. Following the proposed development, the occupants of No. 31A would have less than the standard outdoor space available, and the narrow form of the remaining space would limit its usability.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision However, the configuration of the flat at No. 31A is unusual. The main living area is physically separate from the dining room which is located in the main part of the house. To move between the dining room and the rest of the flat, including the kitchen, it is necessary to walk outside, through the courtyard. Given these circumstances, the desire to install a covered link is understandable, and is likely to be seen as an improvement in living conditions for the existing and future residents of No. 31A. 19. Construction of the proposed link would result in a loss of usable outdoor area, but the incorporation of sliding doors in the central section would enable the space to be opened up and used in a flexible way. Part of the space would be covered, but occupants would still have access to an area they could use for outdoor seating, eating and clothes drying in a similar way to that existing. The effect of losing part of the outdoor amenity space would therefore be less harmful than suggested. 20. The outdoor courtyard area provides the main source of natural light to the sitting and dining areas of the flat, with skylights providing daylight to the bedroom and kitchen areas.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision The layout of the flat, and the lack of windows, means that the space will be already be dark, and whilst the construction of the proposed link would not improve this situation, the glazed structure would allow light into the courtyard and internal areas, so would not make it significantly worse either. 21. Taking account of the particular circumstances of the site, and the benefits of providing an all-weather link, I conclude that the proposed development would provide a satisfactory standard of living conditions in respect of outdoor amenity space. I have identified no conflict with development plan policies in relation to this issue. Conditions 22. In addition to the standard implementation and plans condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring that the development be constructed in accordance with the schedule of materials set out on the plans and Design and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V5570/W/21/3281045 Access Statement. I agree that this is necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Conclusion 23. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed.

31A Cressida Road, Islington, LONDON, N19 3JN — London Borough of Islington — R Morgan INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5