‘Crunchingly wrong’ terrace extension is rejected
Neighbours had objected to couple's bid to build kitchen extension on listed Georgian terrace
24 March, 2017 — By Koos Couvée
Jane Wheatley, who lives near the Tufnell Park Road property, was among those who objected to the proposed extension
A COUPLE’S bid to build a kitchen extension to their Grade II-listed Georgian terrace in Tufnell Park has been rejected because the design was “crunchingly wrong”.
Islington Council planning officers had recommended approval of the application to build the 3×5 metre addition to the property in Tufnell Park Road, but a Town Hall planning committee rejected it on Tuesday.
Councillor Martin Klute, who chairs the committee, said members unanimously threw out the plans “on the basis of design and harm to listed buildings”.
“It was a horrible design,” he said. “The way the extension was configured was that it cut across the two parts [the main house and coach-house].” Three French doors would have been more suited to a new uPVC conservatory rather than an extension to a listed house, he added.
“The design was crunchingly wrong. I’m sure it’s possible to design a sympathetic extension but this wasn’t.”
Neighbours Jos and Jane Wheatley had objected to the proposals, saying they were not in keeping with the rest of the terrace and, if approved, could lead to an increase in similar applications involving historic homes.
They were backed by Islington Archaeology and History Society, which said granting permission would represent a “creeping erosion of heritage”.
Speaking after the decision, Christy Lawrence, of the society, said: “The council was absolutely right to reject this extension. It looked clumsy, covering half the main house and the whole of its adjoining coach-house, straddling them in an ungainly way and damaging the terrace’s integrity. Officers were going to give permission – it only went to committee because people wrote in and objected. Hopefully, this result means attempts to change heritage buildings will be better considered in future.”
The applicant declined to comment on the decision.