Appeal 3363492

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal property is one of a pair of two-storey, brick built semi-detached dwellings that stand alone in a prominent position at the end of a small cul-de-sac, made more noticeable as the surrounding area comprises similar two storey semi-detached and terrace dwellings, dating from a similar period, set back from the road behind short parking areas and/or front gardens with larger ones to the rear. The property has a shallow hipped roof (a distinguishing characteristic of [name] and the surrounding area) and is visible from busy [site address] and the canal that runs alongside. The pair appear as a good quality and original intact example of their type. This and the above aspects lend a cohesive quality to the street scene that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed altered roof shape due to its design, bulk and scale would result in the host dwelling’s roof appearing significantly disproportionate than that of its adjoining neighbour, creating an incongruous addition, that would overwhelm and unbalance the originally designed symmetry of this pair of semi-detached dwellings. The visual harm would be exacerbated by the appeal property’s prominent position within the street scene and wider area.

Although the proposal would, to a certain extent, be similar to the extension at Number 3 [name], it would differ significantly in appearance due to its prominent position and its relationship with the adjoining property. Whilst gabled roof forms are not completely absent in the wider locality, the site-specific circumstances of those properties are not directly comparable with the appeal property, as in most cases these have a two-storey projecting gable from the front elevation which to an extent helps limit the visual impact, and as such the majority of these changes appear in keeping with host properties.

Consequently, the appeal proposals would harm the character and appearance of the area, and thus conflict with Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Improving Enfield Development Management Document (2014). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is in keeping with the character of the existing property, having regard to scale, bulk and massing and that it does not dominate when viewed from the surrounding area or disrupt the balance of a pair of properties.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.