Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 October 2022 by F Harrison BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 November 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/22/3299752 Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, London N7 0HY • 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 Morris Hume against the decision of Council of the London Borough of Islington. • The application Ref P2021/3650/FUL, dated 14 December 2021, was refused by notice dated 17 March 2022. • The development proposed is extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal site, with regard to private outdoor space. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site is a lower ground floor flat in residential use. It is located within a four-storey block of flats which extends round the street as part of a crescent layout. The crescent has uniformity in appearance owing to a consistency in fenestration and the general absence of any alterations or extensions.

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision This creates a clear sense of balance. The symmetry of the flatted development is a distinctive feature in the street and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 4. The flats are set back from the road by a low boundary wall and relatively deep private outdoor space. There are some additional boundary treatments adjacent to the wall which vary in height and design, nevertheless, the clear spaces in front of the properties creates an open character that contributes to a sense of place. 5. The proposal would introduce a single storey extension in an otherwise open character, disrupting the consistent building line of the distinctive existing flatted development. Despite being designed to follow the height of the boundary walls and aligning with existing window openings it would unbalance the otherwise harmonious character and appearance of the area and thereby https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V5570/W/22/3299752 appear incongruous. Moreover, it would erode the spaciousness of the frontages, filling almost entirely the private outdoor space, and being set back only a short distance from the front boundary. 6. The retention of the existing front boundary treatment would preserve an element of visual continuity along the street, and the topography of the site would result in the proposal being screened to some degree and reducing its prominence. However, when viewed on approach to the site in either direction, given the absence of any other front extensions in the area, and owing to the depth of the proposal, it would draw the eye. The proposal would be a discordant and overly dominant addition, detracting from the open character and appearance of the immediate area. 7. Even with a proposed green roof to soften the built form, the retention of existing soft landscape features and additional landscape measures and the distinction between private and public space being maintained, the proposal would be visually intrusive. Figure 21 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2017) relates to side extensions and end of terrace infill so is not comparable to the appeal. 8.

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision My attention has been drawn to the existence of an example of a front extension on Hilldrop Road, an adjacent street. However, the context of this example differs in both overall appearance and relationship with the street scene. It is on a different street, would not be seen with the appeal scheme and as such is not directly comparable to the proposal before me. 9. For the reasons given, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS9 of Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) and Policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies (Local Plan) (2013). These policies seek development with a high quality design that enhance the built environment, making a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of an area. 10. The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2021) regarding the need to achieve well designed places. It would also be contrary to guidance set out in the SPD. Private Outdoor Space 11. The SPD highlights the importance of gardens in providing visual relief to the predominantly urban and densely developed character within the Borough.

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision The SPD advises that development should enhance private open space, of which the shape and form should be positively determined, avoiding negative or left- over spaces. The Framework at Paragraph 130 advises that development should create places that promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 12. The proposed extension would take up a large proportion of the existing generously sized private open space. The proposal would therefore significantly reduce the amount of usable private open space. While it may be that the garden area will be enhanced through additional landscaping and planting, the extension would remove a large proportion of the garden area undermining its function. Moreover, the only usable space would be a small courtyard, limiting what activities could reasonably take place within it. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V5570/W/22/3299752 13. There is an area of communal open space to the rear of the flats, however this is not a comparable form of open or private space. It is not accessible directly from the occupant’s home and does not provide the same function. As such, the availability of communal open space does not offset the loss of private open space. While it may be that other flats at ground floor and above do not have private outdoor space, I must consider the appeal on its own individual planning merits. 14. Consequently, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal site, with regard to private open space, contrary to the provisions of the SPD and the approach in the Framework. The Council also alleges a conflict with Policy DM3.5 of the Local Plan with regards to this matter. However, Policy DM3.5 appears to relate to new residential development and conversions and the provision of new open space, and my attention has not been drawn to any words in this policy that are relevant to this main issue. The policy has therefore not been determinative in my decision. Other Matters 15.

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — Appeal Decision The Council's handling of the application has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the case. I have considered comments from a local resident with regard to the appellant’s family being embedded in the local community and their desire to remain in the local area. However, it has not been shown the appeal scheme is the only way of achieving this. 16. While the proposal would provide more accommodation and workspace for the appellant’s family, these benefits would be largely private. I acknowledge that the proposal includes a bio-diverse roof which may well encourage wildlife and enhance the local environment, and that the construction of the proposal is said to improve the energy efficiency of the property. However, these general benefits are not sufficient to weigh against the harm that would arise. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.

Flat 1, 14 Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, LONDON, N7 0HY — London Borough of Islington — F Harrison INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3