Appeal 3373887

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the front rooflight. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the two rear dormers and planning permission is granted for two rear dormers at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0449/HOU, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development, other than that part which is not permitted, shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 00.101; 01.101; 00.201; 00.204; 02.101; 03.101.

Details of the materials (including samples of any roofing material) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding dimensions appearing on the plans provided, at no point shall any part of the works hereby permitted be less than 200mm below the crest/ridge tiles of the ridge to the main roof of the existing house.

The proposal before me includes reference to a rooflight in the front roof-slope but the appellant has indicated in their statement that this element of what is proposed is not now sought to be approved. I have determined the matter accordingly.

The main issues are the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Lakes Estate Conservation Area (LCA).

No. [site address] is a substantial semi-detached house at the end of a long residential street of Edwardian-era housing within the LCA to which it makes a positive contribution with most original features intact. Due to its location the flank wall of the house with its chimney stacks and, to a lesser degree parts of the two-storey rear outrigger, are visible from the public realm and potentially from some other properties along [address] or their gardens. However the private gardens intervening between No.76 and houses which front Old Park Road and [address] are well-treed and the proposal would be screened from most locations at its rear.

The LCA character appraisal indicates the importance of retaining consistency of appearance in original house types such as No.76 and in particular reports concern as to the detriment brought about by rooflight insertions. The submitted plans1 indicate a proposed rooflight of square proportions in the front roof slope which, for these reasons, would be a negative feature of the proposal.

The proposed dormers would sit on the upper part of the rear outrigger but inset from the edge and below the hip profile of the main roof. Due to the length of the outrigger and surrounding structures I do not consider these would be prominent in views from those directions despite an elevated position. They would be visually subordinate and sufficiently inset from the edges and chimney such that, my observations indicate, the opportunity for the dormers to be seen from the street are very limited. Even if discerned by passers-by or neighbouring users they would, by use of appropriate materials, have little, if any, visual impact.

Overall, the proposed dormers would enable the provision of additional accommodation to an established family house in a way which would have negligible impact upon the host dwelling or the LCA within which it is located. Taking this into account, and having regard to the duty set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 at section 72 (1) I find little conflict with [name] 37 and DMD44 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (EDMD) which seek high quality design and the conservation of heritage assets. I therefore conclude, taking all matters raised into account and for the reasons given, that the appeal should succeed other than in regard to the proposed rooflight and subject to the usual timing and plans conditions. In addition, noting that the submitted drawings refer to replacement roofing finishes, it is necessary to ensure these are consistent with the basis of my decision and that the construction of the dormers would preserve the character and appearance of the LCA in terms of their relationship with the main roof.