A London Borough of Hackney enforcement notice against front and rear extensions on a property has been quashed and planning permission granted following an appeal.

Primetime Estates had appealed against the notice on the property, which is two storeys high at the front and three storeys at the rear. The house is towards the middle of a terrace of properties of similar age and appearance in an established residential area.

In September 2018, the council granted planning permission to enlarge the home with front and rear roof extensions and a first-floor rear extension.

During the site visit, inspector Stephen Hawkins observed that a number of neighbouring homes had been enlarged by front and rear dormers spanning the full width of the roof, including the adjacent property. Most of these extensions appeared to be historic and, except in two cases, there was no indication from the council that they were unlawful.

He noted that the road and adjacent streets were identified in the council’s street survey as having been visually affected by the addition of large roof extensions but decided such extensions form an established part of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The inspector also found a proliferation of mostly two-storey flat-roofed extensions of varying size, design and materials at the rear of local homes. As there was no suggestion any of these were unlawful either, they also contributed to the character and appearance of the area.

The inspector said “Given the prevalence of similar modern roof extensions in the street, this extension is acceptable in its context without an adverse visual impact having regard to the scale and form, architectural character, materials, design and roof line”.

Hawkins also noted the first floor extension could be reduced in height to that of the 2018 permission, with the appellant stating it could be lowered without compromising the internal ceiling height, with the walls of the extension finished in a similar material to the home.

If the alterations were carried out, the appearance of the extension would not be significantly different to that in the 2018 permission and would not appear at odds with the home or the variety of rear extensions in the vicinity.

In quashing the notice and granting permission, the inspector imposed a condition requiring the appellant to reduce the height of the first floor extension and replace its external wall materials with those similar in appearance to the walls of the home.

27 March 2019