Appeal 3374036

The appeal is dismissed

The main issues are the effect of the development upon: • the character and appearance of the area and • living conditions of neighbouring users.

The appeal site (No.207) is a two storey semi-detached house dating from the inter-war years in which the housing pair would originally1 have featured a hipped, tiled, roof with canted bays on both floors and a simple recessed entrance feature. Whilst these latter features remain, a recent hip-to-gable roof conversion of No.207 has changed the visual relationship with its neighbouring property, [address] which is part of a block of three late Victorian or turn-of-century houses. These uniquely and distinctively interrupt the otherwise unrelieved development pattern of later terrace block housing set in sustained, parallel, building lines along both sides of [address].

The five houses which incorporate the appeal site, its dwelling pair together with the block of three earlier houses which run tight to the adjacent junction with [address], are distinctively set at staggered angles to the main road. The flank corner of No.207 is thereby set forward of its neighbour, a characteristic which is accentuated by the added bulk of its recent roof extension. 1 until recently in all likelihood

The side extension for which permission is sought, although set back from the principal front elevation is, because of the angled position, set prominently forward of No.209 and appears as an intrusive element in the street scene. The appellant refers to separation distances2 these have no relevance in such circumstances and my observations indicate that even if the side extension were to be adjusted in the ways suggested by the appellant, the upper floor of the extension would continue to intrude upon an appreciation of the form and setting of the adjacent house to the significant detriment of the street scene. I consider the development conflicts with Policies DMD6, DMD14 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) (EDMD) which together seek high quality design and that development should be appropriate to local character.

The extension infills the majority of the intervening space with its neighbour, No.209. Whilst there appear to be no habitable rooms directly affected in the flank and rear, the upper parts of the extension and the lower storey of the extension to the front do create a degree of enclosure which is overbearing to the neighbouring property, particularly of its frontage and outlook from principal rooms. This conflicts with Policy DMD8 of the EDMD which seeks that development should preserve amenity of other users. The extension lies on the western side of No.209 such that there would be a slight reduction of access to afternoon sun at certain times and seasons, although, given the dense suburban setting and busy location this would not be experienced as significant.

In conclusion, the side extension would have a moderate impact upon living conditions for neighbouring users but the cumulative impact of the extension would unacceptably conflict with the policies of the development plan that I have identified with regard to the street scene and, overall, with the development plan taken as a whole. Consequently, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal must fail.