Appeal 3290020

The decision notice describes the proposed development as a rear dormer with doors and Juliet balcony. This differs from that on the application form, referred to above, in that apart from the different spelling (Juliette/Juliet), the decision notice description omits the front rooflight. The submitted plans do not include the rooflight and it would seem that this element was subject to an amendment before the Council made its decision. I have therefore based my decision on the amended description and have not included the front roof light in my

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear dormer with doors and Juliet balcony at [site address] , Southgate [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/02448/HOU, dated 22 June 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Location Plan; and • [name]: - 2021-05-5825/1; 2021-05-5825/2; 2021-05- 5825/3 Rev 1; and 2021-05-5825/4 Rev 1.

I consider that the main issue is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of The Lakes Estate Conservation Area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached house within The Lakes Estate Conservation Area and therefore I have had regard to Section 72(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is reflected in London Plan Policy1 HC1, Core Strategy2 Policy 31, Development Management Document3 Policy DMD 44, the Lakes Conservation Area Character Appraisal 4 and Management Proposals5 and the National Planning Policy Framework6.

The dormer would not be visible from [address] but it could be seen from Broomfield Park to the rear. The accessibility of the park enabled me to view the row of houses in this section of [address] from close up at the rear of No 10 but also from further back in the park. I noticed a number of other dormers in the row and saw that construction work was underway at the adjacent property. However, I have limited information about the other dormers in terms of when they were constructed and whether or not they were subject to planning approvals.

The design of the roof is such that only part of the dormer would be visible from neighbouring properties or from the park and so whilst in its entirety it would be a fairly prominent addition to the roof, in effect the reduced views of it would significantly lessen its impact. I note that a previous application for a rear dormer was approved but the time period for commencement has elapsed7. The Council do not explain why it has changed its view of a rear dormer to this property other than point out that the Conservation Area Character Appraisal recognises that box dormers are an issue facing the area. It also draws attention to Policy HC1 of the London Plan regarding heritage assets. Neither of these present convincing arguments as to why this particular proposal was acceptable a few years ago but is not now.

I note that further advice about dormer extension is provided in development Management Document Policy DMD 13 and the proposal would not strictly comply with the dimensions suggested in this policy. Other polices are also referred to by the Council which I have considered in my assessment. I also appreciate that the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. It is an attractive property with clear heritage credentials. However, the roof is also unusual in its design, and whilst the design of the proposed dormer may otherwise be unacceptable, the partially obscure view of it due to the design of the roof and the presence of a chimney would significantly reduce its impact. I can therefore find no sound justification that it would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 1 Mayor of London – The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] 2021. 2 Enfield Council – The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025, [name] 2010. 3 Enfield Council – Improving Enfield Development Plan Document (DMD), [name] 2014. 4 Enfield Council – The Lakes Estate Conservation Area [name], [name] 2015. 5 Enfield Council – The Lakes Estate Conservation Area [name], [name] 2015. 6 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government National Planning Policy Framework, 2021 (the Framework). 7 Planning Application Ref; 17/02020/HOU – Granted with Conditions on 11/07/2017.

The Council has not suggested any conditions but I have considered whether any should be imposed in the light of the Planning Practice Guidance8. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the materials match those of the existing house in order to ensure a satisfactory appearance especially given the Conservation Area status of the house. These are referred to on the application form. I also consider that it is necessary to carry out the works in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

I have considered all matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of The Lakes Estate Conservation Area. It would comply with London Plan Policy HC1, Core Strategy Policy 31, DMD 44 and the Framework. The appeal therefore succeeds.