Appeal 3298180

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side and rear extension at [site address] , Southgate, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00084/HOU, dated 11 January 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to conditions set out below.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Ground Floor Plan: [name].04; Proposed Roof Plan: [name]. 05; [name]: [name].06; proposed; Location Plan: [name].08; and Existing Section: [name].09.

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

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the property itself.

The appeal site lies within a predominantly residential area, characterised typically by terraced two-storey properties. Some properties in the area have been altered and/or extended in a variety of ways, notwithstanding this there is in general a uniformity retained. The appeal site is an end terraced two-storey property on the corner of [address] and [address].

The side boundary enclosure at the appeal site is sited hard up to the footpath comprising timber and concrete posts adjacent the side elevation of the property and concrete panels extending the majority of the side garden with large metal gates towards the rear. The boundary is utilitarian within the streetscene, similar to others in the area.

Policy DMD14 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) (the DMD) requires side extensions to maintain a distance from the back edge of the pavement on the return frontage to the flank wall. The policy does set out how this will be assessed taking into account building line and vista to properties, character of area, the dominance of the structure along the street frontage amongst other things.

The proposed side extension would be large projecting beyond the front of the two storey elevation of the property, linking with the projecting ground floor feature. Extending the length of the side elevation and projecting approximately 3.7m further than the rear elevation the proposed development would wrap around the property to the shared boundary with No. [address] and extend beyond that of the neighbouring property’s single storey extension.

The roof has been designed at a shallow pitch sloping up from the adjacent footpath in an attempt to reduce the visual appearance of the development.

I observed during my site visit that there are extensions hard up to the footpath on corner properties within the immediate area, namely No. [address] and [address]. I also noted that the extension at [address], directly opposite the appeal site, projects beyond the two storey front and rear elevations wrapping around to the rear similar to the proposal before me. The extension at No. 2 is different in terms of design and appears smaller in terms of the rear projection, nonetheless this large extension is comparable.

Policy DMD11 of the DMD seeks to ensure that single storey extensions do not exceed 3m beyond the rear elevation of a terraced property and secure common alignment of rear extensions. The proposed development projects further from the rear elevation and beyond the extension to the neighbouring property No. [address].

Notwithstanding this, whilst the proposed extension would conflict to a degree with Policy DMD11 of the DMD the aim of the policy is to ensure that any residential extension does not disrupt the established pattern and form of development. From what I observed on site the proposed development would not appear out of keeping with the area or the property itself.

The proposed extension would be prominent on this corner plot, however the site is at a lower level to [address] and due to the single storey shallow roof design and the similarities to the extension at [address] I find that the proposed development would not be incongruous in the streetscene.

The proposed development would extend the built form to the full width of the plot wrapping around the property nonetheless I find that it would be subordinate the existing property.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area nor the property itself. There is no conflict with Policy CP30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD14 and DMD37 of the DMD and Policies D4 and D8 of the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things seeks to create a strong sense of place, achieve good design appropriate to the local context.

I have imposed a standard condition relating to the commencement of development. I have included a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In the interest of safeguarding the character and appearance of the property I have imposed a condition relating to the external materials.

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