Appeal 3367644

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 description on the application form includes additional explanatory text. For clarity and ease of identifying the development to which the appeal relates, I have based the description above on the decision notice and delegated report. This omission does not alter any fundamental aspects of the proposal, nor does it prejudice the ability of any party to present their arguments regarding the appeal scheme. I have taken the additional information into account in my findings.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling occupying a prominent corner position at the junction of [address] and [address]. The site lies on the edge of a residential area adjacent a large industrial estate on [address] currently undergoing redevelopment. The appeal dwelling is set back from both front and side boundaries, thus creating a pleasing sense of spaciousness at this transitional point. Landscaped areas flanking both sides of the junction enhance the visual separation between the two zones.

The appeal site side of [address] retains a suburban character, defined by residential properties, rear gardens, domestic garages, and a section of small workshops. This contrasts with the opposite side, which is dominated by larger industrial units. The proposed development would appear as an excessively large separate outbuilding rather than a cohesive subservient side extension, with no direct access from the host dwelling. It would extend outward to the side, abutting the pedestrian highway along [address], and would be of significant height and length that would substantially increase the built form along this boundary. This would result in a continuous, blank façade with no architectural features or visual relief. In comparison the existing boundary treatment, although in need of repair, consists of standard height garden fencing which is far less imposing for pedestrians using [address].

Given the site’s prominence and the scale and bulk of the proposed extension, the development would appear as an incongruous and overly dominant addition. It would disrupt the established rhythm of built form along this side of [address] and erode the sense of openness that characterises this residential setting.

As a consequence, the proposals would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and thus be contrary to Policies D4 and D8 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (London) (2021), Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD14 and DMD37 of The Enfield Development Management Document (2014), which, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development is of a high quality design and be of appropriate height and bulk so as not to adversely impact on the character of the local area.

The improvement on the environmental performance of the dwelling with the proposed introduction of solar roof panels would be positive but worthy of only limited weight given it is unclear as to whether the proposed development is the only means of achieving such.

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.