Appeal 6003066

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for double storey side extension and extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02417/HOU, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no PAR45/1 1 [name].

The development shall not be occupied until details of source control sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) has been submitted and approved by the Local Authority. Source control SuDS measures include green roofs, rain gardens and permeable paving. The details must include plans, specifications and maintenance information. The developer should use the [name] for minor developers found on Enfield Council’s website.

The extensions to the dwelling are under construction, and therefore the appeal proposal is partially retrospective. For the avoidance of doubt my assessment is based on the plans before me.

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

The host property is a two storey, semi-detached dwelling. The architecture in the area is varied in terms of both age and design and includes terraces, semi-detached pairs, several of which have been extended to the rear; as well as blocks of flats. While there are some examples of dwellings with hipped roofs in the immediate area, there are also several examples of dwellings with gable roofs in the street. This includes [address] on the other side of [address], across from the appeal property. The rear extensions are of varying design and influence the character and appearance of the area in particular at roof level where rear dormers are a prominent feature; particularly when viewed from [address], where the layout of development allows for a clear view of the rear of the host property and its immediate neighbours.

The dormer runs to the edge of the roof and is finished in hanging tiles to match the dormer on the rear elevation of [address]. The remaining elevations would be finished in light render to match the original dwelling. The restrained palette of external materials unifies the development and reflects the materials in the area.

From the rear the extension and dormer would appear as a three storey addition, when considered in isolation a dormer and extension of the scale proposed could be considered overly large. However, a three storey block of flats fronts on to [address] adjacent to the rear of the host property. Also, the appeal scheme closely reflects the dormer to the rear of 47 and [address], across the road. In this particular context the appeal scheme would be viewed in the proximity of a higher and larger block of flats and would mirror a similar development across the road. In light of this, the scheme is not an incongruous or dominant feature or harmfully inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of development.

The attached dwelling has a hipped roof and the appeal scheme would unbalance the pair. Still, the properties are not symmetrical as the host property is larger. Further, the varied architecture and roof forms include several examples of gable roofs within the immediate area; including the dwellings that neighbour the pair on either side. Taking into account all of the above, the cumulative impact of the development is not considered to have a harmful impact on the appeal property or surrounding area.

The development does not accord with criteria a of Policy DMD13 of the Improving Enfield Development Management Document (DMD) (2014) (DMD) as it is not set in from the edges of the rear roof plane by 500-750mm. Notwithstanding this, due to the site specific circumstances detailed above, I am satisfied that in this particular instance the development would not result in harm.

I conclude that the appeal development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It accords with Policy D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 and Policies DMD14 and DMD37 of the DMD. The policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to secure development that is sympathetic to the local character and the surrounding built environment.

I have attached a condition relating to compliance with the approved plans in the interests of clarity and certainty.

I have also included a condition requiring the submission of information relating to SuDS within the appeal site in order to ensure surface water is managed appropriately.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Having taken into account all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.