Appeal 6002237

The appeal is dismissed.

There is an extant planning permission (Ref 21/03649/FUL) at the site for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a three-storey building comprising six flats. The approved building would have an overall height of around 9.3 metres, approximately 0.9 metres above the ridge line of the neighbouring dwelling. That consent provides a useful indication of the scale and form of development previously judged acceptable on the site, and I have taken it into account in my assessment.

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

The site occupies a conspicuous position at a bend on [site address] , forming part of the transition between the built-up residential area to the north and east, and extensive open playing fields to the south. The existing two-storey cottage sits behind fencing and mature boundary vegetation. To the east and north-east the street scene is characterised by two-storey suburban houses which present a consistent domestic scale. To the west and north-west is the [name] leisure complex, including a large building of a warehouse-type form set back from [site address] behind tennis courts, fencing, tall vegetation and intervening land uses.

Approaching from the south, including across the playing fields and car park, the site appears in the foreground of an open skyline framed by modest, pitched-roof dwellings. In that context, the proposed building, rising to approximately 12.3 metres with a steep half-hipped roof, would appear abruptly tall and visually assertive. Its height would noticeably exceed that of its residential neighbours and would disrupt the gentle transition from built form to open land.

Travelling along [site address] , the bend in the road makes the site particularly prominent. The approved scheme already reflects the Council’s judgement on the maximum acceptable scale here. The appeal proposal would introduce a significantly taller form that would appear bulky and dominant in these street views, notwithstanding the step back from the neighbouring dwelling or the proposed use of quality roof materials. The steep roof profile would add to the perception of increased mass and height. The resulting form would be visually intrusive and would not integrate comfortably with the prevailing suburban character along this part of [site address] .

From the east, including from [address], the appeal site is read behind hedging and in association with the consistent two-storey roofscape of neighbouring dwellings. Although the building would step away from the neighbouring property, the increased height and roof configuration would still rise appreciably above the prevailing roof level and would appear visually prominent and out of keeping with the domestic scale in which it would be seen. The building would not therefore be experienced as a subservient or recessive form.

The appellant contends that the [name] leisure building provides a contextual backdrop justifying the height of the proposal. However, I saw that the leisure complex is not a key part of the [site address] streetscene. It is set back at distance, screened by vegetation and intervening sports facilities, and is architecturally distinct as a commercial structure unrelated to the domestic frontage. It is therefore not a relevant comparator. The immediate visual context is formed by the two-storey dwellings adjacent and opposite the site.

The appellant also refers to the relative height of habitable rooms in the proposal and the neighbouring dwelling. However, the effect on the street scene is determined by the external height, bulk and roof form of the building rather than internal floor to ceiling relationships. The proposal would still rise significantly above its neighbour and would retain a steep, top-heavy roof profile.

It is suggested that the area lacks architectural merit and therefore has capacity to absorb the proposed scale and roof design. The evidence before me, supported by my own observations, instead shows a simple, coherent residential environment where modest building forms are integral to local character. The site’s prominent transitional position makes it particularly sensitive to a building of the scale and form proposed.

I have also considered the contention that the site is in poor condition and that redevelopment would improve visual quality. However, the photographs submitted with the appeal, and my own observations, show the dwelling to be occupied, structurally intact and set within an enclosed plot with recently installed boundary treatments. Even if some enhancement were desirable, this would not override the requirement for new development to respond positively to local character, particularly in such a prominent transitional position. In any event, an alternative permission for redevelopment is already in place. I therefore give this matter very little weight.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development would be visually intrusive and overly dominant. In this respect, it would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the design objectives of Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 (LP); Policy CP30 of the [name] (2010); and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (DMD). Together, these seek high-quality design that responds positively to local character in terms of height, scale, massing, roofscape and appearance.

The Council’s decision notice also cites Policies G3 of the LP and DMD83. However, the appeal site is not within [name] (MOL) so Policy G3 is not engaged. DMD83 applies specifically to development adjacent to the Green Belt rather than adjacent to MOL. As the site lies opposite MOL and not the Green Belt, DMD83 is not engaged. Accordingly, no conflict arises with either policy.

Based on the evidence before me, the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring living conditions. Matters relating to drainage, energy and biodiversity could be addressed by conditions were the development acceptable in principle. These considerations are neutral in the overall planning balance.

The appellant refers to two appeal decisions. APP/Q5300/W/21/3286099 concerned a GPDO upward extension to an existing block of flats and was assessed under a different legal and policy regime. It is not comparable to this full planning proposal on a suburban edge street frontage. APP/Q5300/W/23/3321414 related to a four-storey scheme in a mixed main-road context containing taller civic and commercial buildings, and where a similar permission already existed. That context is materially different to the low-rise, transitional edge character of [site address] . I therefore attach limited weight to those decisions.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the evidence indicating a substantial shortfall against the requirement. Paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is therefore engaged.

The proposal would deliver housing on previously developed land within an established settlement, aligning in principle with the Framework’s objectives to significantly boost the supply of homes and to make effective use of land in accessible locations, including on small and medium sites. The appellant also refers to the Framework’s support for increasing densities and, where appropriate, building upwards. While those aims are relevant, the Framework qualifies them by requiring that development is well designed and sympathetic to local character, which the scheme would not achieve for the reasons I have set out.

In terms of specific benefits, the scheme would provide eight dwellings. However, because of the extant permission for six units, the net increase is two dwellings. I attach limited weight to this uplift. There would also be short-term economic benefits during construction and ongoing household expenditure, but these economic benefits attract limited weight.

Set against these benefits is the identified harm to character and appearance. The Framework makes clear that achieving well-designed, beautiful places is a key aspect of sustainable development, and that developments should be sympathetic to local character while optimising site capacity. Where design quality is poor or fails to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area, permission should be refused.

In this case, the adverse impacts arising from harm to local character and appearance would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole. The material considerations, including housing supply, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.