35 Heathland Road, LONDON, N16 5PG
London Borough of Hackney — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Authority
- London Borough of Hackney
- Inspector
- Scott A
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mr Schmuel Rubinfeld
- LPA reference
- 2021/3562
- ONS LPA code
- E09000012
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 11 October 2022
Summary AI
The appeal for prior approval to build an additional storey on a dwellinghouse was dismissed due to concerns about the external appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. The proposed extension would significantly add to the height of the building and be out of character with the surrounding properties.
PDF text
35 Heathland Road, LONDON, N16 5PG — London Borough of Hackney — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 22 March 2023 by Alison Scott (BA Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th May 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/W/22/3297797 35 Heathland Road, London N16 5PG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant prior approval required under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AC of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Rubinfeld against the decision of London Borough of Hackney. • The application Ref 2021/3562, dated 8 December 2021, was refused by notice dated 29 April 2022. • The development proposed is Prior approval for the erection of one additional storey to the existing dwellinghouse to provide one self-contained residential unit (Use Class C3). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs has been made by the appellant and is determined under separate cover. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. Reasons External Appearance of the dwelling 4.
35 Heathland Road, LONDON, N16 5PG — London Borough of Hackney — Appeal Decisions The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) - Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AC permits upwards extensions to a dwellinghouse provided it meets specific criteria. The external appearance of the dwellinghouse is one such criteria and therefore given the reason for refusal, is where I will concentrate my assessment. 5. The appeal property is a two storey dwelling located within a residential area of predominantly semi-detached houses. Whilst there is some variation to the residential dwellings within the street scene and types of properties, there is a consistency to many houses as they are the same house type that shares the same design characteristics. 6. The appeal site is attached to Number 33 Heathland Road and turns the corner with Grangecourt Road. It is a later addition to its adjoining property that was originally built as a pair with symmetry. The appeal dwelling does appear as an https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
35 Heathland Road, LONDON, N16 5PG — London Borough of Hackney — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decision APP/U5360/W/22/3297797 individual house type to its neighbour. However, as it is a smaller scale and characteristics to the dwelling, it does not compete with the more grand proportions of it. 7. The proposed materials and roof cover would correspond with the host dwelling. The fenestration pattern would also align with the existing fenestration. Whilst overall, the architectural detailing would match that of the existing dwelling, the additional storey would significantly add to the height of the building. 8. By adding another level to the house would appear significantly out of character with No 33, even though they are of different characteristics. It would rise above both the eaves level and the ridgeline of the neighbouring dwelling. The fact that the appeal dwelling is of a different style, age and design would only serve to highlight how incongruous it would look within the street context. 9. Therefore, the proposal would be harmful to the external appearance of the dwelling, and to the street scene as a consequence. Conclusion 10. The appeal is dismissed.
35 Heathland Road, LONDON, N16 5PG — London Borough of Hackney — Alison Scott INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
External appearance Against appellant ¶4
The external appearance of the dwelling is one of the criteria for permitted upwards extensions, and the proposed extension would be harmful to the dwelling's appearance.
External appearance Against appellant ¶5
The appeal dwelling is a different style and design to its neighbouring property, and the proposed extension would be out of character with the surrounding properties.
External appearance Against appellant ¶6
The proposed materials and roof cover would correspond with the host dwelling, but the additional storey would significantly add to the height of the building.
External appearance Against appellant ¶7
The proposed extension would rise above both the eaves level and the ridgeline of the neighbouring dwelling, and would be out of character with the surrounding properties.
External appearance Against appellant ¶8
The fact that the appeal dwelling is of a different style, age, and design would only serve to highlight how incongruous it would look within the street context.
External appearance Against appellant ¶9
The proposal would be harmful to the external appearance of the dwelling, and to the street scene as a consequence.
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 10 May 2023 under the Open Government Licence.