Appeal 6005145

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, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lakes Estate Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the Lakes Estate Conservation Area (the CA), the significance of which is derived from its cohesive and largely intact predominantly residential Edwardian suburban character, developed within a relatively short period in the early 20th century. This is reinforced by the quality and variety of traditional materials and detailing, including brickwork, timber joinery, decorative porches, and distinctive roof forms, which together create a unified and visually rich townscape. The contribution of trees, planting, and private gardens serve to soften the built form and provide a meaningful ecological and visual contribution to the CA’s overall significance.

The appeal site comprises a two‐storey end-terrace Edwardian building, originally constructed as a dwelling, positioned on a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. It is currently in mixed use with a dental surgery at ground floor and residential accommodation above. It forms part of a terrace that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The building reflects the established scale, form and architectural language typical of the CA, but by virtue of its position at the end of the terrace and on a corner, and its side elevation being elevated above the corresponding highway, it has a greater degree of openness and exposure than many neighbouring properties. Its side and rear garden areas additionally make a noticeable contribution to the spatial qualities and verdant character of the CA.

The proposed single-storey wraparound extension would extend across the entire rear elevation and much of the side elevation. Its front elevation would be set back, retaining the existing canopied side elevation entrance serving the first-floor accommodation.

Whilst the extension would be single-storey and include a hipped roof form in common with the existing building, the shallower roof pitch and altered profile would not reflect the proportions or detailing of the host building. This, combined with the incorporation of flat-roofed elements extending beyond the rear elevation, would result in an awkward and incongruous form that would be readily apparent from the public realm. The proposed eaves treatment would further diverge from the distinctive overhanging eaves that are characteristic of the existing building, diminishing the architectural coherence of the host property.

In addition, the extent of development across the side and rear garden areas would erode the perception of openness associated with the plot and contribute to the proposal’s overbearing appearance. The resulting form would fail to read as a clearly subordinate addition and would instead appear as a visually intrusive and uncharacteristic encroachment within a prominent, elevated corner location, to the detriment of the spatial qualities of the site and its contribution to the wider area.

The proposed detailing would compound this harm. [name] note the Design and [name] refers to the use of timber windows, the submitted plans indicate UPVC windows, and I have determined the appeal based on these plans. The introduction of UPVC windows would contrast uncomfortably with the host building’s traditional timber windows, conflicting with the established character of the area. Moreover, the proportions of the proposed windows, particularly on street-facing elevations, would appear uncharacteristically shallow, failing to reflect the vertical emphasis typical of the host building on its most prominent elevations. Taken together with the roof design, this would result in an extension that would not respond positively to the architectural character, detailing and proportions of the host building and the CA more generally.

I note the appellant’s position that the CA exhibits a degree of incremental change, including extensions to side and rear elevations. I also acknowledge the appellant’s submission that the proposal has been reduced in scale from earlier iterations and, by virtue of its single-storey height and set-back from the boundary, would appear subordinate to the host building.

Whilst the site context and design refinements are acknowledged, this does not indicate that all forms of extension would be acceptable. I am required to assess the proposal on the basis of the scheme before me, and I find that, notwithstanding any iterative design changes, the particular scale, form and siting of the proposal before me does not persuade me to depart from my previous findings.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and that of the CA more generally, resulting in harm to its significance. Whilst that harm would be less than substantial, I nevertheless afford it considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Whilst the identified harm is at the lower end of the spectrum of “less than substantial”, such harm should nonetheless be given considerable importance and weight.

In this case, the appellant identifies a range of such benefits arising from the development. These include enhancements to the operational capacity of the existing dental practice, provision of additional treatment space, improved infection control through dedicated facilities, and increased accessibility for all users, including those with disabilities. The proposal would also provide upgraded staff accommodation, support more efficient day‐to‐day functioning of the service, and make efficient use of land.

Collectively, these are genuine and meaningful benefits that would contribute positively to local healthcare provision and reflect broader objectives relating to accessibility and inclusive design, consistent with wider social and community objectives. I therefore give them moderate weight in the planning balance.

I also recognise that no concerns have been raised in respect of living conditions, highways, drainage or other technical matters. However, rather than being benefits, I treat these matters as neutral in the overall planning balance.

Having carefully balanced the identified public benefits against the harm to the CA, I am not persuaded that those benefits are of sufficient weight, either individually or cumulatively, to outweigh the identified harm. In particular, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these benefits are dependent on the particular form and extent of development proposed. As such, the proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of the Framework.

Accordingly, I conclude that the less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy HC1 of the London Plan March 2021, Policy 44 of the Development Management Document (DMD), [name] 2014, Policy 31 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025, and the relevant provisions of the Framework, which collectively require development affecting heritage assets to conserve and, where possible, enhance their significance by responding positively to their character, setting and historic context through high-quality, contextually appropriate design.

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.