Appeal 6002134

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development in the banner heading above was taken from the application form, with the removal of the word ‘retrospective’ as this is not an act of development.

At the time of my visit, it was evident that building work had taken place. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The effect of the development on the host property and character and appearance of the area.

The application relates to a dwelling on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and characterised by two storey terraced properties of a uniform height. The majority retain the original ground floor bay windows on the front elevation, and modest paired outriggers on the rear. The layout of the area is such that the rear elevation of the appeal property is clearly visible from [address]. The consistency of the established built form and the pattern of development add to the positive visual qualities of the area and gives the surroundings a spacious feel.

The appeal property is positioned on the end of a terrace of 6 dwellings. Based on the submitted plans, prior to the implementation of the appeal scheme the dwelling had a box dormer on the rear elevation that was higher than the original ridge height of the building. The Council state that this dormer did not benefit from planning permission and there is no evidence before me to demonstrate otherwise. The building also retained the paired rear outrigger on the rear elevation. The other properties that make up the terrace all retain original features including bay windows, painted segmental arches above the front doors and paired rear outriggers. This results in a pleasing uniformity that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme is for a single storey extension on the front elevation and replacement of the outrigger and dormer window on the rear elevation with a three storey extension, which is stepped in at the side next to the street. The rear extension is higher than the ridge height of the original dwelling, resulting in a visible height difference between the host property and the other dwellings in the terrace.

The extension to the rear has a flat roof and is significantly taller and larger than the outriggers on the other dwellings in the terrace resulting in an extension that appears top-heavy and overly bulky. The position of [address] on a prominent corner, which is highly visible within the area, adds to the dominant impact of the development on the street scene. Further, the extension on the front elevation is so wide that it engulfs part of the bay window as well as the original front door. As a result, the original detailing has been replaced with a contemporary porch with a more linear built form. Both extensions have resulted in the loss of original features and the erosion of the uniformity of the terrace, both factors which contribute positively to local distinctiveness. Further, the rear extension is overly large in terms of scale and massing when considered in relation to the proportions of the host property and the existing rear extensions on the terrace. My concerns in this regard are not resolved by an absence of harm to heritage assets.

For the reasons detailed above, the appeal scheme has a harmful effect on the host property and character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it conflicts with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 and Policies DMD8, DMD13, DMD37 of Improving Enfield Development Management Document (DMD) (2014) When read together these policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in requiring high quality design, and development that responds positively to local distinctiveness that is of an appropriate scale, bulk and massing. They also require that roof extensions should be inset from the ridge of the host property.

In support of the appeal, my attention was drawn to other properties in the area that have already been extended in a similar manner to the scheme before me. These include [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address]. I do not have details of the planning permission for any of the examples provided. As such I cannot be certain that these extensions have been approved under the current development plan. Further, based on the evidence before me, and my own observation, it is not clear that any of the examples include extensions that are higher than the ridge height of the original dwelling as well as being positioned on a prominent corner where the rear elevation is visible from the street.

I therefore consider that the examples provided are not a direct parallel to the appeal in respect of location and prominence within the street scene and therefore these examples only attract limited weight in favour of the scheme, which does not outweigh the harm I have identified. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

It is acknowledged that there have been no objections to the scheme from both neighbours and consultees. However, an absence of objections is not sufficient to overcome the harm I have identified in relation to character and appearance.

I understand the wishes of the appellant to provide space to meet the needs of their family. However, such personal circumstances carry very little weight.

There are no material considerations to indicate that this appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.