Planning application · Hackney
2022/3051.
Glory Phone, 377 Mare Street, Hackney, London, E8 1HY
Full / Other Planning at Glory Phone, 377 Mare Street, Hackney, London, E8 1HY, received 19 Dec 2022 — refused on 10 Apr 2023 (delegated, Gerard Livett).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Apr 2023
16 wks
Decision time
8 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Hackney planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Erection of two-storey rear extension at first and second floor levels; erection of mansard-style roof extension; conversion of extended upper floors into two self-contained dwellings accessed from Gould Terrace
Reference
2022/3051
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
E8 1HY
Council
Received
19 Dec 2022
Validated
13 Feb 2023
Target date
10 Apr 2023
Decision date
10 Apr 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Reference
2022/3051
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
E8 1HY
Council
Received
19 Dec 2022
Validated
13 Feb 2023
Target date
10 Apr 2023
Decision date
10 Apr 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Hackney portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 10 Apr 2023, delegated decision by Gerard Livett — 16 weeks from submission (8 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Dec 2022
Application received
13 Feb 2023
Application validated
10 Apr 2023
Statutory target date
10 Apr 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Gerard Livett
19 Dec 2022
Application received
13 Feb 2023
Application validated
10 Apr 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
10 Apr 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Gerard Livett
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed extensions would represent disproportionate and
inappropriate additions to the host building that would overwhelm and
subsume the host building and would fail to respect the pattern of
development in the area, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the host
building that would neither preserve nor enhance the character and
appearance of this part of the Clapton Square Conservation Area. As such the
proposal is contrary to policies D3 (Optimising site capacity through the
design-led approach) D4 (Delivering good design) and HC1 (Heritage
conservation and growth) of the London Plan 2021, policies LP1 (Design
Quality and Local Character) and LP3 (Designated Heritage Assets) of the
Hackney Local Plan 2020 and the recommendations of the Supplementary
Planning Document: Residential Extensions and Alterations 2009 and the
Clapton Square Conservation Area Appraisal 2007.
2
The proposal, by reason of the additional bulk of the building, would result
in it having an overbearing appearance and give rise to perceptions of an
increased sense of enclosure and appearance of bulk when viewed from
neighbouring properties and also give rise to loss of light to neighbouring
buildings, to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring residential
occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to policy D4 (Delivering good
design) of the London Plan 2021 and policies LP1 (Design Quality and Local
Character) and LP2 (Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan
2020.
3
The proposal, by reason of the provision of rear balconies, would give rise
to unacceptable levels of overlooking of neighbouring properties, to the
detriment of the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such the
proposal is contrary to policy D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan
2021 and policies LP1 (Design Quality and Local Character) and LP2
(Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2020.
1
The proposed extensions would represent disproportionate and
inappropriate additions to the host building that would overwhelm and
subsume the host building and would fail to respect the pattern of
development in the area, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the host
building that would neither preserve nor enhance the character and
appearance of this part of the Clapton Square Conservation Area. As such the
proposal is contrary to policies D3 (Optimising site capacity through the
design-led approach) D4 (Delivering good design) and HC1 (Heritage
conservation and growth) of the London Plan 2021, policies LP1 (Design
Quality and Local Character) and LP3 (Designated Heritage Assets) of the
Hackney Local Plan 2020 and the recommendations of the Supplementary
Planning Document: Residential Extensions and Alterations 2009 and the
Clapton Square Conservation Area Appraisal 2007.
2
The proposal, by reason of the additional bulk of the building, would result
in it having an overbearing appearance and give rise to perceptions of an
increased sense of enclosure and appearance of bulk when viewed from
neighbouring properties and also give rise to loss of light to neighbouring
buildings, to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring residential
occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to policy D4 (Delivering good
design) of the London Plan 2021 and policies LP1 (Design Quality and Local
Character) and LP2 (Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan
2020.
3
The proposal, by reason of the provision of rear balconies, would give rise
to unacceptable levels of overlooking of neighbouring properties, to the
detriment of the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such the
proposal is contrary to policy D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan
2021 and policies LP1 (Design Quality and Local Character) and LP2
(Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2020.
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.