Appeal 3297594

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of area; and (ii) trees.

The site is within a predominantly residential area characterised typically by semi-detached properties. The appeal site has a single storey extension to the side of the property which would be demolished and replaced by a two-storey extension which would extend the full length of the property at ground floor with a set back at first floor.

Policy DMD14 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) (the DMD) seeks to ensure side extensions do not result in a continuous façade or ‘terracing effect’ by requiring a 1m gap to be retained between the property and the boundary.

Notwithstanding this due to the orientation of the neighbouring property No. [address] which is not aligned with the frontage of the appeal site the development would retain the prevailing semi-detached character of the area, avoiding a continuous façade or ‘terracing effect’.

The proposed development is modest in scale, not incongruous in the streetscene and does not dominate the appeal property.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of area. There is no conflict with Policy CP30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010) (the [name]), Policies DMD8, DMD14 and DMD37 of the DMD and Policies D4 and D8 within the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things seeks to create a strong sense of place, achieve good design appropriate to the local context.

There is no conflict with the Framework which seeks to secure good design which adds to the overall quality of the area.

Trees and shrubs are close to the appeal site boundary. Trees adjacent the shared side boundary of the appeal site which bounds the rear private amenity space have been lopped. These trees offer little in terms of amenity value.

Notwithstanding this, mature trees are located within the front garden of No.[address], these trees provide amenity value within the streetscene. [name] have not been provided with any details that the trees are covered by a tree preservation order, Policy DMD80 of the DMD seeks amongst other things to protect and retain trees of amenity value.

The Appellant has not provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not affect the trees on the adjacent land which are close to the proposed development. On this basis I am not persuaded that the proposed development would not harm the adjacent trees.

There is conflict with Policy DMD80 of the DMD and Policy G7 of the London Plan which seek amongst other things to protect trees of amenity value. There is conflict with the Framework which seeks to protect the natural environment.

The second reason for refusal contends that there would be conflict with Policy CP31 of the [name]. This policy relates to built and landscape heritage and seeks to protect the distinctive characteristics of the Borough arising from its historical development it does not relate to the development before me.

I have found that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, however this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of the trees adjacent the site.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.