Appeal 6004830

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling within a cul-de-sac characterised by a limited number of dwellings arranged in a simple and legible layout. The built form predominantly comprises two pairs of semi-detached dwellings, together with a detached dwelling at the head of the cul-de-sac. Notwithstanding some variation in detailing, these properties exhibit a consistent pattern of development, with semi-detached pairs displaying a clear symmetry in their original two-storey form, contributing to a cohesive and balanced streetscape.

The character of the cul-de-sac is also influenced by its spacious and verdant qualities, derived from the gaps between buildings and the presence of trees and vegetation. This is particularly evident towards the southern end, where larger gaps allow for soft landscaping and a greater sense of openness. These features contribute positively to the setting.

The proposed development would introduce an additional two-storey dwelling within the side garden of the host property, together with extensions to the existing dwelling, resulting in a marked increase in built form along this part of the cul-de-sac. The existing gap to the side of the dwelling makes a meaningful contribution to the sense of openness and spacing between buildings. The proposed 2-storey form, encompassing both the new dwelling and the extension, would be substantially wider than the existing dwelling and would largely erode this gap, diminishing the spacious character of the area.

As a result, the combined development would read as a broader and more continuous block of built form, rather than as a subordinate addition. This would be especially apparent in views along the cul-de-sac, where the short and enclosed nature of the street would make the increased width and massing readily perceptible. In this context, the development would appear as a prominent and visually dominant feature, at odds with the prevailing restrained pattern of development.

The development would incorporate design measures including a slightly reduced ridge height and a set-back front elevation. Whilst these measures would provide some degree of visual articulation, when viewed as a whole they would not sufficiently offset the fundamental issue arising from the overall width and combined massing of the development. Consequently, the proposal would introduce a form and scale of development that would not reflect the established character of the street.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development, by virtue of its width and overall massing, would appear overly dominant and intrusive, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan March 2021, Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025, and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD14 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (DMD) [name]

Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that development is high quality, design-led, responds appropriately to its context and respects local character. It would also conflict with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which have similar aims.

Paragraph 11 of the Framework outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking, paragraph 11.d) provides that where the most important policies for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The Council’s officer report acknowledges that it has not met the requirements of the [name], with the consequence that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework notes that the policies most important for determining the appeal should be treated as out-of-date. However, this does not mean that those policies should be afforded no weight. Rather, the weight to be afforded depends on their consistency with the Framework.

In this regard, my findings on the main issue identify clear conflict with development plan policies that seek to ensure that development is high quality, design-led, responds appropriately to its context and respects local character. These objectives are consistent with the Framework, which emphasises the importance of achieving well-designed places and recognises good design as a key aspect of sustainable development. Accordingly, notwithstanding the paragraph 11.d) balance, I give these policies significant weight.

Turning to the benefits of the proposal, the development would result in the provision of one additional dwelling. The Framework places significant weight on supporting the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The proposal would also make efficient use of land within an established and sustainable residential location. These are matters that weigh in favour of the scheme.

However, the extent of this benefit is limited by the fact that the proposal would deliver only a single additional unit. Whilst this would be a positive contribution, it would make only a modest addition to the Borough’s housing supply and would not, in itself, materially alter the Council’s housing delivery position.

I note that the Council has identified no harm in terms of living conditions, highway safety, or internal accommodation standards. Whilst this is acknowledged, the absence of harm in these respects amounts to a neutral consideration rather than a benefit, as all developments are expected to meet such baseline requirements as a minimum.

Set against the identified benefits, I have found harm to the character and appearance of the area, which would conflict with development plan policies that are consistent with the Framework. I therefore conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, in this case, the proposal is not supported under the paragraph 11.d) balance.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.