18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 May 2022

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London N1 0RU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Abela against the decision of Council of the London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref P2021/1259/S73, dated 27 April 2021, was refused by notice dated 22 June 2021. • The application sought planning permission for the erection of a full width and depth two storey extension at second floor roof level, which includes a mansard style roof with rear roof terrace and dormer windows at loft level and associated works without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref P2020/2733/FUL, dated 14 January 2021.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London N1 0RU • The conditions in dispute are Nos 2 and 5 which state that: Condition 2) ‘DRAWING AND DOCUMENT NUMBERS: The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21642_804B (Proposed Floor Plans 1); 21642_805B (Proposed Floor Plans 2); 21642_806B (Proposed Roof Plan and Section); 21642_807B (Proposed Elevations 1); 21642_808B (Proposed Elevations 2).’ Condition 5) ‘CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENTLY: The hereby approved development shall be constructed concurrently on all three properties.’ • The reasons given for the conditions are: 2) ‘To comply with Section 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Act 1990 as amended and the Reason for Grant and also for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.’ 5) ‘In the interest on the visual appearance of the host buildings and surrounding area.’

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London N1 0RU • 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 Mr Abela against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref P2021/1260/FUL, dated 27 April 2021, was refused by notice dated 6 July 2021. • The development proposed is the erection of a second floor extension and erection of a mansard style roof over second floor extension.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/V5570/W/21/3289164, APP/V5570/W/21/3287659 Procedural Matter 3. Within this decision letter I have considered two appeals at the same site. Although the appeals are procedurally different, the merits of each case are similar thus, to avoid duplication I have considered the merits of each together. Background Appeal A 4. The original permission1 granted approval for roof alterations and extensions across Nos 16, 18 and 19 Thornhill Bridge Wharf subject to a number of conditions. Condition No 2 specified the approved plans, which indicated that the extensions related to the three properties in the terrace, and condition No 5 required the extensions to be constructed concurrently. 5. Appeal A seeks to vary the approved plans referenced in condition No 2, by indicating a phased approach whereby the extension at No 18 is phase 1, No 16 is phase 2 and No 19 is phase 3. Accordingly, this appeal also seeks to remove condition No 5 to allow the phasing of the development. Appeal B 6. This appeal relates to a proposed roof extension at No 18 only.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Although the development is for No 18, the proposed extension corresponds with the proposed roof alterations and extensions as indicated on the plans submitted with Appeal A. Main Issue 7. Given the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposal, and the varying and removing of the conditions, on the character and appearance of the area including the setting of the Regent’s Canal West Conservation Area. Reasons 8. The appeal property is a first floor flat located within a two storey mid-terrace building. The host terrace is a row of two storey properties and is of similar character to the adjacent properties within the quadrangle of residential development. It is located adjacent to Regents Canal and is visible from surrounding buildings, along the tow path and from the adjacent bridge. 9. The variation of condition No 2 and the removal of condition No 5 would allow the proposed extension to be erected at No 18 first, following which phase 2 and phase 3 at Nos 16 and 19 respectively could be erected at a later date.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. There is no information before me to indicate a timeframe of development for each phase nor any mechanism to guarantee that the planned sequence of phase 2 and 3 on the adjacent properties would be carried out. The implementation of each phase would also be subject to numerous external factors. As a result, the extension at No 18 could become an isolated example, in a similar manner to the development proposed solely at the appeal property in Appeal B. 10. The proposed extension would see the introduction of a substantial mass to No 18 through two additional stories, resulting in an extension that would be a 1 Council ref: P2020/2733/FUL https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. There is no information before me to indicate a timeframe of development for each phase nor any mechanism to guarantee that the planned sequence of phase 2 and 3 on the adjacent properties would be carried out. The implementation of each phase would also be subject to numerous external factors. As a result, the extension at No 18 could become an isolated example, in a similar manner to the development proposed solely at the appeal property in Appeal B. 10. The proposed extension would see the introduction of a substantial mass to No 18 through two additional stories, resulting in an extension that would be a 1 Council ref: P2020/2733/FUL https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Appeal Decisions APP/V5570/W/21/3289164, APP/V5570/W/21/3287659 top-heavy and overly dominant addition to the limited scale of the host building. The resultant excessive height of the property would be at odds with the attached properties either side and would significantly interrupt the currently consistent roofline of the host terrace. The proposed isolated alteration to No 18 would create a jarring unbalance to the scale and roof form of the host terrace and this would be readily apparent from the public realm. 11. Furthermore, in the case of Appeal A where the proposed alterations to the host terrace are to be developed in a phased approach, as there are no guarantees before me that all three phases would be fully implemented this could result in the extension being erected at Nos 18 and 16 (phase 2), thus leaving No 19 undeveloped. This would also significantly undermine the uniformity of the host terrace and result in the harm I have identified. 12. The appeal site is located outside of but immediately adjacent to the Regent’s Canal West Conservation Area (the CA).

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. The significance of the CA is largely derived from its canal and basin setting and its former industrial use with large buildings sited close to the water edge. Given the dense urban characteristics along the boundary of the CA, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the setting of the CA, which would thereby be preserved. This is a neutral matter. 13. Building heights vary considerably in the immediate locality and I note there are a number of upward extensions within the quadrangle at the Thornhill Bridge Wharf development, including at Nos 2-9. Notwithstanding the dense urban character of the locality, the existing roof alterations appear subservient in scale to the host properties and terraces. Therefore, even if there are examples where roof extensions are not constructed simultaneously across respective terraces, given their limited scale and massing they do not appear stark in their context, unlike the proposal before me.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Moreover, there is limited information before me in terms of the previous approvals, including the removal of a condition for an approval at Nos 28-31 which it is suggested required the concurrent construction of approved development across those properties, thus I cannot be certain that they are directly comparable to the development before me. 14. I note there is one example within the quadrangle where an additional storey with mansard extension above has been constructed. However, as adjacent properties to this example have undergone vast alterations to the roof and, moreover, as this example is not visually prominent from public vantage points, it is not directly comparable to the proposal before me. 15. It has been suggested that the host property could utilise permitted development rights for an upward extension. There is nothing before me to indicate that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that such development would take place, or indeed to substantiate what any permitted development rights would allow or what such a scheme would provide.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Whether an application would qualify for prior approval for an upward extension under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), taking into consideration a condition on the original planning permission for the wider housing development, is not a matter for me within the context of this appeal. Thus, none of these other considerations, on their own or in combination, alter my view. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Whether an application would qualify for prior approval for an upward extension under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), taking into consideration a condition on the original planning permission for the wider housing development, is not a matter for me within the context of this appeal. Thus, none of these other considerations, on their own or in combination, alter my view. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Appeal Decisions APP/V5570/W/21/3289164, APP/V5570/W/21/3287659 16. Taking all the above into consideration, the proposals, either through the isolated extension at No 18 in Appeal B or a phased approach across the host terrace in Appeal A as a result of varying and removing condition Nos 2 and 5 respectively, would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. They would therefore conflict with policies D3 and D4 of The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (March 2021), Policy CS8 of Islington’s Core Strategy (February 2011), Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (June 2013), the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Collectively these policies and guidance seek, amongst other things, to ensure that developments are of a high-quality that responds positively to its local context. Conclusion Appeal A 17. Condition Nos 2 and 5 meet the six tests in paragraph 56 of the Framework, thus the appeal is dismissed. Appeal B 18.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — 2. Appeal B is dismissed. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

18 Thornhill Bridge Wharf, Islington, London, N1 0RU — London Borough of Islington — H Ellison INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4