Part single part two storey side and rear extensions and loft conversion with a rear dormer and one roof light to front and one rooflight to side roof slopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 September 2016 by M C J Nunn BA BPL LLB LLM BCL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th October 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/16/3155771 39 North Circular Road, London, N13 5EG  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Sridhar Mandadi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref: 16/00855/HOU, dated 26 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 13 May 2016.  The development is described as “part single part two storey side and rear extensions and loft conversion with a rear dormer and one roof light to front and one rooflight to side roof slopes”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for a part single, part two storey side and rear extension involving alterations to the front elevation at 39 North Circular Road, London, N13 5EG, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 16/00855/HOU, dated 26 February 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: JS/SP/857/00; JS/SP/857/01; JS/SP/857/02; JS/SP/857/03; JS/SP/857/04; JS/SP/857/05-A; JS/SP/857/06; JS/SP/857/07-B. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matters 2. A rear dormer was initially included in the proposal but this was subsequently omitted from the planning application during processing. The Council has assessed the proposal on this revised basis and I have done the same. The description given in my decision above is taken from the Council’s refusal notice, as this accurately reflects the revised proposal. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/16/3155771 2 Reasons 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and on the living conditions at No 37 North Circular Road, in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight. The appeal property comprises an end-of- terrace two storey dwelling on the corner of North Circular Road and Franlaw Crescent. There is an existing single storey lean-to structure attached to the side of the dwelling which abuts the pavement along Franlaw Crescent. The other properties in the vicinity comprise similar terraced dwellings. The locality has a suburban character. 4. The two storey side element, although extending to the side boundary at ground floor level, would be sufficiently set in at first floor level to reduce the appearance of bulk and achieve a suitably subordinate appearance. The extension’s roof would be hipped, and the overall ridge height would be set below that of the main dwelling, thereby achieving an appropriate degree of subservience to the existing house. Overall, there would not be any perceptible diminution of the open character of the street. The proposal would be adequately assimilated with the host dwelling and wider area without spoiling their character. 5. Although not a reason for refusal, concerns have been raised by the occupiers of No 37 regarding the effect on that neighbouring property. However, the rear extension, projecting some 3 metres and abutting the boundary with No 37, would not be of excessive depth, and would accord with the limit prescribed by Policy DMD 11 of the Development Management Document. The two storey rear projection would be set at sufficient distance from No 37 not to result in a materially harmful effect on living conditions, in terms of outlook, sunlight or daylight. Indeed, the rear elevations of the properties face north so any effect in terms of sunlight would not be significant, and be confined to the late afternoon / evening period as the sun moves from east to west. 6. To sum up, I conclude on the main issues that the proposal would not materially harm the character or appearance of the area, nor the living conditions at No 37. It would comply with Core Policy 30 of the Core Strategy, and Policies DMD 6, DMD 11 and DMD 14 of the Development Management Document. Together, these policies seek to maintain and improve the quality of the built environment through high quality development. It would also accord with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan which have similar aims. 7. A commencement condition is necessary to comply with the relevant legislation. A condition requiring compliance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt. A condition requiring materials to match those of the existing building is necessary to safeguard the character of the building, as well as the wider area. Subject to these conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Matthew C J Nunn INSPECTOR