47 Burma Road, Hackney (rear extension next to a locally listed building)

Decision

dismissed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: M Cryan

Authority

Hackney (London)

Appeal reference

6007927

Application reference

2025/1650

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use from two flats to a single dwelling house, with a three-storey rear extension, first-floor terrace, mansard roof extension and alterations to rear windows

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3(3), DP3(1), HE7(2), S4(1)

Development plan policies

Hackney Local Plan 2020 LP1, LP4, LP17, London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1

Main issues

character and appearance; setting of a non-designated heritage asset

Summary

A rear extension with large double-height glazed doors to a Victorian terrace house in Hackney, next to a locally listed house. The inspector found the glazing obtrusive and harmful to the terrace and to the setting of the non-designated heritage asset. The S4 balance was run with DP3's refusal limb and HE7: the modest benefits could be achieved without the harm and were clearly and substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have had regard to the provisions of the new Framework; where I have referred to the Framework in this decision, policy and paragraph numbers are from the current August 2026 version" (DL ¶5).
• Character: CONFLICT. "the overall size and materiality of the glazed doors would make them obtrusive and inharmonious features, at odds with the generally smaller windows found along the rear of the terrace" (DL ¶9).
• Non-designated heritage asset, HE7: HARM. "They would also provide an unsympathetic backdrop to 42 Clissold Crescent, thereby detracting from the setting of that locally-listed building" (DL ¶9).
• Evidence. "The visual impact of the window and door openings on the rear elevation would therefore be considerably greater, and rather more harmful, than the number presented suggests" (DL ¶10).
• DP3(3) and HE7(2) stated. "it goes on to say that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they do not do this" (DL ¶15). "Policy HE7 of the Framework says that where development would harm the significance of an NDHA, this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal and a balanced judgement made" (DL ¶15).
• Benefits achievable without the harm. "they would represent a very limited increase on such benefits which could be achieved without causing harm either to the setting of 42 Clissold Crescent, or to the character and appearance of the area more generally" (DL ¶16).

Planning balance

S4(1), with DP3(3) and HE7(2). "I consider that these modest benefits would be clearly and substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, including the conflict with the policies of the Framework which I have set out in the preceding paragraph" (DL ¶16). The inspector does not label a separate "clear justification" finding, but the reasoning supplies it: the benefits do not need the harmful design.

What made the difference

The glazing. The extension's size was not the problem; two very large glazed door openings on a visible rear elevation were. The appellant's solid-to-void figure did not survive scrutiny of what it counted.

Transferable points

• DP3(3) "clear justification" is answered by asking whether the benefits could be had without the harm: benefits that "could be achieved without causing harm" do not justify a design conflict (DL ¶15–16).
• A non-designated heritage asset's setting is weighed under HE7's balanced judgement, alongside the S4 balance (DL ¶15–16).
• A numerical design metric offered by an appellant is tested against what it includes and what can be seen (DL ¶10).
• Under S4, modest benefits were "clearly and substantially outweighed" by design and NDHA harm on a householder-scale scheme (DL ¶16).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• No 42 Clissold Crescent is locally listed for its link with the church architect James Brooks and its architecture; three of its four elevations are visible from the street (DL 8)
• Appellant's 24% solid-to-void ratio counted only clear glazing and included side walls hidden from view, so it understated the visual impact (DL 10)
• An earlier scheme was dismissed in October 2025 (APP/U5360/W/25/3370774); a May 2024 permission for conversion to 4 flats remains valid (DL 2, 11)
• Works already carried out on site matched neither the existing nor the proposed drawings; decided on the submitted drawings (DL 3-4)
• Council submitted no appeal statement (DL 4)
• Site visit made on 25 June 2026; the letter has regard to the new Framework and does not say the parties were consulted (DL 5)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.