- Decision
- allowed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: M Cryan
- Authority
- Islington (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6005904
- Application reference
- P2025/2735/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Extension above an existing rear two-storey outrigger, enlarged rear box dormer, rooflight and replacement rear windows to an upper-floor flat in a Victorian terrace
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, L2(1)(d), DP3(1)
- Development plan policies
- Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies 2023 PLAN1, London Plan 2021 D4, Islington Urban Design Guide SPD 2017
- Main issues
- character and appearance
Summary
An extension above a two-storey rear outrigger and a larger box dormer for an upper-floor flat in an Islington terrace. The inspector found the extension boxy, above the main eaves and unbalancing the paired outriggers, so it conflicted with the local plan, London Plan D4 and DP3(1). But the harm was limited, the addition is invisible from the street, and L2(1)(d) gives substantial weight to extra floorspace in the airspace above existing homes. Under S4 the benefits were not substantially outweighed. Allowed against the plan.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I have determined the appeal having regard to the provisions of the new Framework" (DL ¶3). No consultation.
- Character: HARM, limited. "it would therefore cause some harm to the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶7). "Though the impacts of this would be limited, there would be conflict with Policy PLAN1 ... and with Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021" (DL ¶13).
- DP3(1): CONFLICT. "the proposed development would conflict with the requirements of Policy DP3 of the Framework to respond to site context and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶19). The letter does not mention DP3(3) or ask whether there is clear justification.
- L2(1)(d): BENEFIT, substantial. "The development would not be visible from the street frontage however and, in line with Policy L2 I attach substantial weight to the provision of additional residential floorspace in a sustainable urban location" (DL ¶19).
- S4: PASS. "I find that the benefits of approving the proposed development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
S4. Limited character harm and a DP3(1) conflict against substantial L2 weight for extra floorspace. Then s38(6): the conflict with the development plan is outweighed by material considerations, "including the Framework" (DL ¶21).
What made the difference
L2(1)(d). It gives substantial weight to extra floorspace above existing homes and relieves rear additions not visible from the street of the street-scene test, and that outweighed limited rear-elevation harm. The letter treats the DP3(1) conflict as a weight in the S4 balance and never asks the DP3(3) clear-justification question. A scheme visible from the street, or harming a conservation area, would have faced the L2(1)(d)(i) street-scene test and probably failed.
Transferable points
- L2(1)(d) substantial weight applies to extra floorspace for an existing flat, not only to new homes, where it uses the airspace above existing residential premises (DL ¶18–19).
- Rear additions not visible from the street frontage fall within the L2(1)(d)(i) exception to the street-scene test (DL ¶18–19).
- Allowed despite a DP3(1) conflict with no clear-justification step, so this is not reliable authority on DP3(3). Contrast letters that route the same conflict through DP3(3) and S4(2)(c).
- Existing LDC extensions nearby are not precedent where they illustrate the harm the SPD seeks to avoid (DL ¶9).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | conflict | limited | boxy flat-roofed extension above eaves, unbalances the paired outriggers and raises the party parapet; contrary to SPD guidance; harm "limited" because small, at the rear, not visible from public spaces and with some local precedent (DL 7, 11, 13, 19) |
| DP3(3) | not-engaged | DP3(1) conflict found but the refusal limb (DP3(3), clear justification) is never mentioned; the conflict is carried straight into the S4 balance (DL 19-20) | |
| L2(1)(d) | benefit | substantial | additional residential floorspace in the airspace above existing residential premises; not visible from the street frontage, so L2(1)(d)(i) street-scene consistency not required (DL 18-19) |
| S4 | pass | benefits not substantially outweighed; plan conflict (PLAN1, D4) outweighed by material considerations including the Framework (DL 16, 20-21) |
Key facts
- Five LDC outrigger extensions (Nos 27, 31, 39, 43, 51, 2016-2025) described as "bulky and intrusive"; 2017 appeal for paired extensions at Nos 45-47 distinguished as a unified scheme (DL 8-10)
- Seven of 29 houses on this side of the terrace have extensions above outriggers (DL 11)
- Extension would not be visible from public spaces, only from rear windows and gardens on Witherington Road (DL 11)
- Neighbour light and outlook (45-degree and 25-degree tests) found acceptable; kitchen not a principal habitable room (DL 14-15)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.