Appeal 6005330

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development above differs from that used in the original application form and is the description used by the Council. I consider that the description more accurately describes the scheme proposed and have used this accordingly.

The main issues are: Whether the second floor accommodation would offer sufficient and acceptable standard of living accommodation and the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a three storey end of terrace building that forms part of a parade of gabled shops and flats facing onto this busy main road and district centre of Green Lanes. The property is located at the corner of [address] and contains a jewellery shop to the ground floor and two subsequent floors of residential accommodation above. The property is generally matching in its front elevation to others along this part of the terrace albeit in a rough render finish to the upper floor. The roof is a slate pitched roof that then forms a hip to the rear and there is also an outshot type extension to the rear.

The proposal before me seeks to extend upwards over the existing rear outshot to create a kitchen area to the first floor rooms and it then intends to convert the loft space into two further rooms each with an en suite bathroom. The rear proposed bedroom would have outlook from a rear window in the proposed rear gable but, as no such gable window exists to the existing front elevation, the bedroom to the front of the property would be lit only by a single rooflight window. In order to gain Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6005330 adequate space, access and headroom the roof would be altered and two flat roof elements would be added onto the building. The smaller such extension would be to the [address] elevation and would manifest itself as a slate or vertical tile hung flat roof box dormer so as to achieve headroom over the stair.

In assessing this appeal, I am aware of Haringey’s Local Plan Policy DM17 and the London Plan Policy D6 both of which require housing and HMO developments to be of high quality and benefit from functional layouts with sufficient daylight and amenity standards.

Firstly, I consider that a bedroom of [address] metres with only a single rooflight, which does appear rather modest in the overall roofslope, would not offer a suitable nor sustainable level of amenity for a principal bedroom. Although south facing, this rooflight window would be too small and overshadowed for much of the day by the adjacent dormer structure and the habitable room would, I consider, be substandard as a result. As such the outlook and illumination levels into this space would be significantly compromised and would result in a level of accommodation that would be in conflict with policies DM17 and D6.

Secondly the existing side elevation of this property is visible from along Green Lanes on approach in a southerly direction and this proposal would therefore be far more noticeable than other such examples nearby. Moreover, despite these other nearby schemes none are as visible as this one. Where upper floors have traditionally been converted, the articulation and design of such extensions have been of a much better design than this.

The scheme before me would instead create a standalone and unarticulated flat roof box dormer that would appear incongruous and of a very poor standard of design whose presence and visibility would not be acceptably mitigated by the modest parapet that runs around the side elevation of the building.

As such this proposal represents a very poor design response to this context and would create internal accommodation of a poor standard. As such I find clear conflict with policies DM1, DM17 and SP11 of the Haringey Development Management DPD and Policy D6 of The London Plan.

For the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal.