Appeal 6005890

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the setting of a listed building; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal dwelling is a Victorian two storey mid-terrace house. It has been the subject of a ground floor rear extension that is the full width of the appeal dwelling and that wraps around the rear flat roofed two storey outrigger. It is located in a street and wider residential area made up of similar terraced properties. Along with the other houses on its side of the street, the appeal dwelling backs onto the [address], a [name] listed building.

Under section 66(1) of the Planning and Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, I have a responsibility in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses

The design of the proposed L shaped extension is in general terms an amalgamation of an extant planning permission1 for a rear dormer extension in the rear roof slope and a single storey flat roofed extension over the rear outrigger for 1 Planning Ref: HGY/2025/1128 which a Certificate of Lawfulness2 (CoL) has been issued but remains unimplemented. The appeal proposal seeks to combine these two proposed extensions into one, but with an increase in height of 0.54 metres for that part of the proposed L shaped extension above the outrigger.

The combination of the two extensions of which planning permission and a CoL have been issued, with an increase in height proposed for the element over the outrigger, creates a single large roof level addition that would appear to be a combination of box like forms in their massing. This would not reflect the Victorian character of the appeal dwelling. The height and scale of the proposal would result in it failing to appear as a subordinate or secondary addition, but rather as an unduly prominent addition that would appear to dominate the rear and roof of the appeal dwelling. This would result in the appeal dwelling appearing to stand in contrast with the character of the other Victorian houses in the terrace.

Due to the height, scale and box like form the proposed extension would appear as a bulky addition that would dominate the appearance of the rear of the appeal dwelling and would have an undue prominence in views of its rear from surrounding properties. This includes views where it would be seen in combination with and in the setting of the [name] listed Courthouse. Whilst the distances involved would reduce the effect of the proposal on this setting, it would result in significant detriment to the setting of the listed building, where it would appear as a bulky incongruous and unduly prominent box roof form, in contrast with the roofscape of the terrace within which it sits.

The appeal dwelling and neighbouring properties in the terrace are of modest scale, resulting in windows and doors being positioned close to the boundary with neighbouring properties. The neighbouring property at [address] (No.19) has a narrow passage to the side of its outrigger that runs between the outrigger and the boundary with the appeal dwelling. There are windows in the rear elevation and outrigger that look out over this passage, that is already constrained by the modest scale of No.19 and that of the appeal dwelling.

Due to its bulk height and massing, the proposed L shaped roof extension would result in an increased sense of enclosure to the neighbouring properties on either side of the appeal dwelling, especially to No.19. This would result in an overbearing effect and concomitant loss of outlook.

This would be further exacerbated by the overshadowing effect of the proposal on south facing windows in the flank of the outrigger, as well as those in the rear of the main house at No.19, which would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to the rooms they serve. Consequently, the presence of the proposal and overshadowing effect that would result from the proposal would be experienced by the occupiers of this neighbouring property as oppressive with a significantly detrimental impact on their living conditions.

Whilst there are other examples of roof dormers and additions to the rear outriggers in the local area, including the terrace within which the appeal dwelling sits, these do not take the form of box like L shaped roof level additions and do not result in 2 Planning Ref: HGY/2025/1123 comparable impacts on character and appearance and the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers that I have identified above.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, less than substantial harm to the setting of the [name] listed [address] and substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to Policies SP11 and SP12 of the Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013-2026 (2017) and Policies DM1, DM9 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management Development Plan Document (2017). Collectively these seek development that, amongst other matters, is of a high standard of design that respects the architectural characteristics of the original building and its local context, ensures the conservation of the setting of listed buildings and ensures a high standard of amenity for neighbours.

The permission and approval for the separate extensions to the main roof and outrigger benefit from being extant. As a fallback position for the appellant, the extant permissions are a valid alternative to the appeal proposal. In combination, they would have similar effects on character and appearance and the living conditions as the appeal proposal. However, the additional height of the proposed outrigger element of the L shaped extension would, due to its height, bulk and massing, result in significantly greater harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the setting of a listed building and the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

Whilst the appeal development provides additional space for the occupiers of the appeal dwelling, this is primarily a private benefit. I find that this benefit does not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The appeal is dismissed.