Appeal 6002291

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development in the banner heading above was taken from the original planning application form. Reference to minor alterations on the first floor to accommodate a new staircase have been omitted as internal alterations do not require planning permission.

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

The application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and characterised by mainly semi-detached dwellings. The majority appear relatively unaltered and retain original features which include double height bays and a variety of roof types. The high quality original architecture adds to the positive visual qualities of the area. The host property is semi-detached, and when viewed from the street the roof form of each dwelling is matched and the buildings are relatively symmetrical. To the rear both have been extended in the past.

The layout of the properties in the area is such that [site address] is stepped forward of the neighbouring semi-detached pair, 2 and [address]. This allows a clear view of the side elevation of the host property from the street.

The appeal scheme is for alterations to the roof to replace the hipped section with a gable, alter the pitch, and increase the overall ridge height. The development also includes erection of a box dormer that would extend from almost the entire width and depth of the rear roof plane, which would have a single window and Julliette balcony.

The large dormer would have a flat roof, and the alterations would result in the pitch and height of the host property differing from its attached neighbour. This would result in the loss of symmetry between the pair and an extension that appears top-heavy and overly bulky. The position of [site address] forward of the neighbouring pair at 2 and 4 results in the side elevation being highly visible from the public realm, this adds to the dominant impact of the development on the street scene. Altogether, the proposed scheme would result in the loss of the original roof form and the symmetry of the pair, both factors which contribute positively to local distinctiveness. My concerns in this regard are not resolved by an absence of harm to heritage assets.

For the reasons detailed above, the proposed development would have 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 DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD13 and 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.

The Council raises no concerns regarding the principle of extending the dwelling, the living conditions of the occupants and neighbours, parking provision, and external materials. Based on the evidence before me I find no reason to disagree with the Council. However, an absence of harm in regard to these matters is a neutral factor weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

It is acknowledged that no objections were received from third parties. Still, an absence of written objections from members of the public, including neighbours, is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to examples of extensions at 12 to [address] where alterations to the roof have resulted in the loss of symmetry to each semi-detached pair. Full details of permissions for these developments have not been provided. Therefore, I cannot be certain that they were approved under the current development plan.

In support of the appeal, my attention has also been drawn to other properties in the area that have already been extended in a similar manner to the scheme before me. These include 20, 8, 12a, 14, 18, 26 and [address]. Again, 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, it is not clear that any of the examples included alterations to increase the height and pitch of the original roof; and erection of a dormer of the size proposed on a dwelling where the side elevation is so clearly 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. Therefore these examples only attract limited weight in favour of the scheme, which does not outweigh the harm I have identified. Also, as detailed above, the majority of dwellings in the vicinity are comparatively unaltered and these examples are not sufficient to establish that variance between semi-detached pairs is a defining characteristic of the area. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.