# 38, 40 and 42 Prebend Street, Islington

- **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin
- **Authority:** Islington (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007094
- **Application reference:** P2025/2929/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Loft conversions with shallow pitched front roofs and rear mansards on three locally listed terraced houses
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE9, HE7
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, Arlington Square CA Design Guidelines 2002, Islington Urban Design Guide SPD 2017
- **Main issues:** character and conservation area
- **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, roof-extension, ndha, simultaneous-development-condition, upward-extension

## Summary
Matching roof extensions on three locally listed terraced houses in the Arlington Square Conservation Area were allowed. The shallow front pitch and set-back rear mansard kept the butterfly roof legible and the extensions subservient. The Inspector departed from design guidance that bars any roof extension visible from the street. The new Framework "does not change the planning policy context" (DL ¶2).

## What made the difference
The low-profile design and limited public visibility. The Inspector also refused the Council's request for a mechanism tying all three extensions to be built together, because each was acceptable on its own (DL ¶16). This is consistent with the new L2(2) presumption against simultaneous-development conditions for multiple upward extensions, although L2(2) is not cited.

## Policy findings
- **HE9: pass.** shallow front pitch and recessed rear mansard keep butterfly roof legible; preserves Arlington Square CA (DL 8-9, 12)
- **HE7: neutral.** locally listed terrace; special features (railings, window guards) unaffected (DL 6, 8-9)
- **L2(2): neutral.** not cited by code, but simultaneous-construction mechanism sought by Council rejected as unnecessary because each extension is individually acceptable (DL 16)

## Key facts
- CA guidance bars roof extensions visible from street; departed from because of low visibility and merit (DL 10)
- Earlier refused appeals at Nos 38/40 were different designs

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5e9a5105-080d-40c8-8975-67b14ae5267b
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007094

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007094.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.