Planning application · Hackney
2026/0475.
75 Wilberforce Road, Hackney, London, N4 2SP
Householder at 75 Wilberforce Road, Hackney, London, N4 2SP, received 5 Mar 2026 — refused on 30 Apr 2026 (delegated, Simone Ward).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
30 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 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 rear and side dormer to the existing roof (Retrospective)
Reference
2026/0475
Type
Householder Planning
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N4 2SP
Ward
Council
Received
5 Mar 2026
Target date
30 Apr 2026
Decision date
30 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Reference
2026/0475
Type
Householder Planning
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N4 2SP
Ward
Council
Received
5 Mar 2026
Target date
30 Apr 2026
Decision date
30 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Hackney portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 30 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Simone Ward — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Mar 2026
Application received
30 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
30 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Simone Ward
5 Mar 2026
Application received
30 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
30 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Simone Ward
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The development as built, by reason of its excessive scale, bulk, and incongruous
roof formation, represents an unsympathetic and dominant addition which fails to
appear subordinate to the host building. The design deviates from the established
architectural rhythm of the terrace and disrupts the uniform roofscape of the
streetscene. Consequently, the development fails to preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of the Brownswood Conservation Area and would not be outweighed
by any public benefits. As such, the proposal is considered 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), LP3 (Heritage Assets and
Substantial Harm), and LP17 (Residential Extensions) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033
(2020), the NPPF (2024), as well as the guidance set out in the Residential Extensions
and Alterations SPD.
1
- The development as built, by reason of its excessive scale, bulk, and incongruous
roof formation, represents an unsympathetic and dominant addition which fails to
appear subordinate to the host building. The design deviates from the established
architectural rhythm of the terrace and disrupts the uniform roofscape of the
streetscene. Consequently, the development fails to preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of the Brownswood Conservation Area and would not be outweighed
by any public benefits. As such, the proposal is considered 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), LP3 (Heritage Assets and
Substantial Harm), and LP17 (Residential Extensions) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033
(2020), the NPPF (2024), as well as the guidance set out in the Residential Extensions
and Alterations SPD.
Policies cited
NPPF
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.