Appeal 6006484

The appeal is dismissed.

For clarity and certainty, in the banner heading above I have used the description of development given on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to outlook and daylight and sunlight.

Lakenheath is an established residential area that is predominantly typified by two-storey dwellings set back from the road with hipped roofs, including the host dwelling. This helps to create a sense of spaciousness.

The appellant has brought to my attention the extensions/roofscape at 42, 44, 61 1 and 682 Lakenheath in support of his case but I have limited details for those schemes and cannot be certain whether they were permitted by the Council under the same development plan or not. So, while noted, I have determined the proposal before me on its own planning merits. 1 Planning Application Ref 19/00663/HOU 2 Planning Application Ref 17/00468/HOU

To the front, the proposed development would have a full width two-storey extension and a higher roof ridge line with a significantly steeper roof pitch to form a crown to enable accommodation in the roof space. The front building line would not be dissimilar to other building lines on the street but the proportion of the height of the roof to the overall height of the building would increase significantly. This combined with the increased mass would make the roof look top-heavy and not proportionate to the building. It would not appear subordinate to the dwelling and would adversely affect the character and appearance of it.

The significantly steeper pitch of the roof to the front and sides of the development would result in a loss of spaciousness at roof level, unacceptably diminishing the spaciousness of the street. Side views of the proposed roof would be of a long, largely single plane, high, steeply pitched roof which would look incongruous.

While other properties in the area have been extended, the proposal would result in a significantly larger/higher crown roof with a resultant mass far greater than other dwellings in the surrounding area, including Nos 60 and 68. As such, while the appellant contends that the proposal would be a logical and integrated response to the enlarged foot print of the dwelling, I find to the contrary, the crown roof proposal and the extensive rear extension would be a bulky addition to No 64 that would overwhelm the modest character of the host dwelling.

Furthermore, while the surrounding hipped roofscapes are relatively modest, the steep proposed and extended roofscape would erode the sense of spaciousness and be highly prominent in this location when viewed from both directions along the street. Landscaping would not be adequate mitigation. Consequently, the proposal would be at odds with the immediate surrounding area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling. It follows then that the proposal would be contrary to Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), CP30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010) (CS), DMD8, DMD11, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) (DMD) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development reinforces local character and that residential extensions are appropriate in scale, bulk and massing, have no adverse visual impact and are in keeping with the character of the dwelling and the local area.

The proposal includes a two-storey extension to the rear which would extend close to the end of the single storey extension at No 62 and would also extend beyond the extensions at No 66. Consequently, given the lower topography of the neighbouring gardens, the proximity of the proposal would be overbearing and create a sense of enclosure for the occupiers of those dwellings when using the garden space for gardening or leisure purposes and harm their outlook.

The proposal would result in a loss of sunlight and daylight to a ground floor side window at No 62, adjacent to No 64, which the neighbour has identified as serving the kitchen. Furthermore, whether the adjacent windows at No 62 and 66 are habitable rooms or not and notwithstanding that windows may have obscure glazing, the fact remains even if the proposal would meet the 45-degree guideline, the height and proximity of the proposed development would diminish the daylight available to the rooms at certain times of the day and year and hence create gloomy spaces beyond. Consequently, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with regard to daylight and sunlight.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and be contrary to Policies D3 of the LP and DMD8, DMD11, DMD13 and DMD37 of the DMD which require that new development has appropriate regard to its surroundings and preserves amenity in terms of outlook and daylight and sunlight. Policy CP30 of the CS does not relate specifically to living conditions and was not determinative to my assessment of the effect of the development on living conditions.

While the proposal would increase the host dwelling from a 3-bedroom to a 4- bedroom home, this does not outweigh the harm I have found above.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.