Appeal 3283436

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regards to daylight and outlook.

The appeal property is two storey mid-terrace dwelling with a ground floor bay window to the front. It is located in residential area. The property has been extended to the rear at roof level.

The area is characterised by the presence of similar brick-built two storey terraced dwellings with ground floor bays, set back from the road behind short front garden areas. Dwellings have longer gardens to the rear.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings have been extended or altered in some way, but that generally, such changes appear in keeping with their surroundings.

The proposed development would extend the dwelling to the rear at ground floor level. Whilst the extension would only project a relatively short way beyond the existing rear outrigger, the L-shaped form of the dwelling to the rear would mean that the proposal would, by extending across the width of the property, comprise a substantial addition, filling the whole of and extending beyond, the recessed area to the rear of the property.

Whilst single storey, the proposal would have a pitched roof that would reach a height considerably greater than that of shared rear garden boundaries and would thus appear prominently in its surroundings.

However, whilst the proposal would be large scale and would, to some extent, appear awkward when seen against the adjoining recess of No [address], I find that it would appear generally in keeping with an area where rear extensions are commonplace; and that it would not appear so disproportionate to the host property as to result in significant harm.

Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D4; to Core Strategy1 Policy CP30; or to DMD2 Policies DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 10.As noted above, the proposed development would extend across the width of the rear of the property. This would result in the proposal rising and extending in extremely close proximity to the rear of No [address]. Like the appeal property, No 20 also projects to the rear. The location of this projection is such that No 20 has a rear recessed area that is situated immediately adjacent to the shared rear boundary with No 22. 11.During my site visit I observed that a ground floor window from No 20 looked out along this recess towards that property’s rear garden and that a further ground floor window faced directly across the recess towards the shared boundary with the appeal property and the appeal property’s recess. 12.In filling the recessed area and by projecting beyond the appeal property’s rear outrigger, the proposed development would result in a substantial development that would run alongside and beyond No 20’s rear recess at a height notably greater than that of the shared boundary. 13.The height, length and immediate proximity of the proposal would result in it looming above and unduly dominating the outlook from No 20’s ground floor windows referred to above, as well as that from the recessed area itself. Consequently, the proposal would have an overbearing impact on the outlook from No 20. 14.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regards to outlook and daylight, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D4; to Core Strategy Policy CP30; and to [name] DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. 15.[name] note that it appears likely to me that the proposed development would, due to its height, length and immediate proximity, inevitably reduce the amount of daylight reaching the rear of No 20, I find that the pitch of the proposed roof would mean that the harm arising from this would not, on its own, warrant 1 The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010-2025). 2 Enfield Development Management Document (DMD) (2014). 2 dismissal of the appeal. However, it is a factor that adds some weight to the decision below.