Appeal 3339819

The appeal is dismissed.

On 30 July 2024, the Government published a consultation draft of proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As the proposed changes do not affect the main issue of this appeal, I have not sought the views of the main parties in coming to my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a three-storey mid terrace dwelling located on a residential street of similarly proportioned properties. The appeal site side of [address] is largely consistent in its building height, creating a pleasing rhythm in the street scene, albeit with some alterations to the local roofscape. The appeal proposal seeks to erect an additional storey to the building to create additional living space at roof level. The property was previously granted permission1 for a roof extension which included a mansard style roof.

My attention is drawn to the ‘[name] in South Tottenham’ Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD). The ‘type 3’ loft extension sought is contrary to the guidance of the SPD which advises that scale and design of extension is not suitable in the area of the appeal site. I note the appellant does not dispute this.

The erection of an additional storey in this manner would add substantial mass and bulk at roof level which would harmfully alter the pleasing proportions of 1 HGY/2022/2140 the appeal property and the surrounding roofscape. This would make the dwelling appear top heavy and would also be a stark and domineering addition to the street scene. Taken together this would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the local area.

I note that a similar proposal was granted planning permission2 at No.[address]. I observed this property on my site visit, and it appeared a large, intrusive feature in the street scene. Evidently, this was approved in error by the Council, which has stated it intends to preserve the remaining scale of properties in the street. While this is an alarming mistake, the street displays a generally consistent height of built form, albeit there are a number of smaller dormers, and this error is not justification to allow further harm.

The proposal would provide additional living space for the appellant and their family. Be that as it may, this would be of private benefit and without specific information I cannot be certain those circumstances would provide a sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm.

To conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the local area. This would be contrary to policy DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (adopted July 2017) which seeks, among other things, to ensure extensions or alterations to residential buildings, including roof extensions, will be required to be of a high, site specific, and sensitive design quality, and respect and/ or complement the form, setting, period, architectural characteristics and detailing of the original buildings. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance in the SPD.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.