Appeal 6007207

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Haringey. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise.

The appeal property forms part of a mid-terrace Victorian dwelling within [address], a street characterised by a consistent and coherent terrace form. The prevailing character is defined by two-storey brick dwellings with pitched roofs and rear outriggers, with chimney stacks forming a regular and prominent feature along the roofline. These chimneys contribute to a strong sense of rhythm and continuity, reinforcing a cohesive and recognisable skyline when viewed from the surrounding public realm, including [address].

Whilst there is evidence of incremental alteration within the terrace, including the presence of a rear dormer extension at the adjoining property No. 66, the overall form and composition of the terrace remain legible. The existence of such alterations do not diminish the importance of the underlying roofscape characteristics, particularly where key elements such as chimney stacks remain a defining and repeated feature.

The proposed development would introduce a large rear dormer and outrigger extension which would extend across much of the roof slope and would appear as a dominant addition at roof level. In addition, plant equipment would be positioned above the dormer, adding to the perceived bulk and visual prominence of the development. This would result in a form of development that would not appear subordinate to the host building but would instead compete with the established roof form.

I have had regard to the adjoining dormer extension at No. 66. However, even where that development is visible within the terrace, it does not set a precedent that justifies further harmful additions. The planning system does not operate on the basis that one unsympathetic form of development can justify another. Rather, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits against the prevailing character of the area. In this case, the cumulative effect of adding further bulk of a similar nature would serve to exacerbate harm and would further erode the coherence of the roofscape.

Furthermore, the proposal involves the removal of the existing chimney stack. Given the consistent presence of chimney stacks both along the terrace and more widely within the surrounding area, their removal would erode a key architectural feature and disrupt the regular rhythm of the roofline. This would result in an interruption to the otherwise cohesive skyline, particularly in views from [address], where the terrace is clearly appreciated. Whilst some variation in chimney retention exists within the wider area, this does not undermine the importance of chimneys as a defining feature.

I have had regard to the fallback position under permitted development rights. However, no detailed fallback scheme is before me. While a different form of development, including alterations to the roof and chimney, may be possible under permitted development, the proposal as submitted must be assessed on its own merits, having regard to its specific scale, form and siting.

Taken together, the scale and form of the dormer, the addition of plant equipment, and the loss of the chimney stack would result in a visually intrusive and discordant form of development. The proposal would fail to respect the established character and appearance of the area and would undermine the coherence of the Victorian terrace.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), which requires development to respond appropriately to its context in terms of form, massing and layout, Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan (2017), which seeks the highest standard of design that respects local context and character, and Policy DM1 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017), which requires development to relate positively to its locality and contribute to the distinctive character of an area.

The proposal includes the installation of air conditioning condenser units at roof level in close proximity to the adjoining property at No. 66. I note that no acoustic assessment or detailed technical information has been submitted to demonstrate the likely noise output of the proposed units or their effect on neighbouring occupiers.

From my observations during the site visit, the properties form part of a typical closely arranged Victorian terrace, with limited separation between the proposed plant location and neighbouring habitable spaces, including rooflights serving the adjacent dormer. In such circumstances, external plant equipment has the potential to give rise to perceptible noise and vibration.

In the absence of sufficient information, I cannot be satisfied that the operation of the proposed units would not result in undue harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. [name] have had regard to the suggestion that impacts could be controlled by condition, the lack of detail regarding the specification, siting and acoustic performance of the units means that it has not been demonstrated that an acceptable form of development has been achieved.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would fail to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), which seeks to avoid significant adverse noise impacts, Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan (2017), and Policies DM1 and DM23 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017), which require development to protect residential amenity and demonstrate that noise impacts are appropriately assessed and mitigated.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.