Appeal 3368037

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 issues for which are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 26 (No. 26) and 30 (No. 30) [address], with specific regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal property is an extended end terraced dwelling, backing on to dwellings fronting [address]. A partially enclosed single-storey L-shaped brick structure is located to the back of the rear garden. In the immediate area, rear gardens are characterised by their open generous size, featuring typical standard garden paraphernalia, including sheds and outbuildings of limited height and footprint. This consistent pattern contributes positively to the area’s overall sense of spaciousness and visual cohesion.

The proposed development’s crown roof, dormer window, rooflights, and full garden width would significantly increase its scale, giving it the appearance of an independent dwelling rather than a subordinate outbuilding to the host dwelling. Back land development is not typical in this locality, which is characterised by minimal built form in these places. The proposal would appear disproportionately large and visually intrusive compared to the surrounding garden structures. As such, it would present as a dominant and incongruous feature, unacceptably eroding the spacious and consistent feel to the area. It would be visible from the public highway to the rear of the appeal site further amplifying its visual impact and highlighting its incompatibility with the established surroundings.

As a consequence, the proposals would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and thus be contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (London) (2021) (SDS), Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD8, DMD12 and DMD37 of The Enfield Development Management Document (2014) (DMD), and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development is of high quality and be of appropriate height and bulk so as not to adversely impact on the character of the local area.

The proposed annexe would be positioned along the boundary with No. 30 and slightly inset from No. 26 due to an existing passageway. Its height would result in a dominant and visually intrusive form, creating an overbearing effect, diminishing the quality of outlook for garden users of No. 30. Additionally, the elevated rooflights, positioned above the boundary fencing and internally aligned at chest height, would enable direct views into the rear gardens of both neighbouring properties, leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupants of both Nos. 26 and 30. Accordingly, the appeal proposals would be contrary to Policy D3 of the SDS and Policies DMD8 and DMD12 of the DMD, which, among other objectives, seek to uphold acceptable living conditions for neighbouring occupiers.

While the proposal would offer additional living space for a family member, this private benefit does not outweigh the significant harm identified against both main issues. The approved and extant single-storey annexe scheme is a fallback position. However, and due to its substantially smaller scale, it is not comparable to what is proposed as part of this appeal and specifically the harms I have identified.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme 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.