For a double storey side extension, internal alterations and roof extension with loft storage space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 February 2018 By Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/17/3187653 84 Wynchgate, London, N14 6RN  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 & Mrs Chandranivasan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 17/03752/HOU, dated 25 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 October 2017.  The development proposed is for a double storey side extension, internal alterations and roof extension with loft storage space. Preliminary matter 1. The proposed solar panels are not referred to in the description for the proposed development as set out in the planning application form, although they are included in the Councils description for the proposed development. Therefore, in the interests of precision, I propose to use the Council’s description for the development in this decision, which is, demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension with installation of solar panels to rear and side elevations. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the installation of solar panels to rear and side elevations. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension at 84 Wynchgate, London, N14 6RN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/03752/HOU, dated 25 August 2017, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The side extension hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 84WYN/01 Revision A, 84WYN/02 and 84WYN03 Revision A, in so far as relevant to the part of the development hereby permitted. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the side extension hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3187653 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension and solar panels on the character and appearance of the host building, the pair of semi-detached houses and the street scene. Reasons 4. Wynchgate is characterised by symmetrically designed pairs of semi-detached two storey dwellings from a limited range of designs. Typically, the dwellings have fully hipped roofs and projecting two storey bays. These bays have a combination of flat and gable roofs, the latter being finished with render and applied half timbering. At ground floor level many of the dwellings have attached garages with a combination of flat, pitched and false pitched roofs. A significant proportion of the dwellings have two storey side extensions of varying sizes and forms and the width of the gaps between dwellings, both at ground and first floor level varies. In addition, the height of the pairs of dwellings vary to reflect the topography of the locality. 5. The Appeal dwelling is one of a pair of symmetrically designed semi-detached houses with fully hipped roofs, two storey bays with gabled roofs and first floor box bay windows with flat roofs. They both have attached garages which are different in their design and appearance and sit at different levels. Also, the Appeal dwelling has a front porch addition which is attached to the garage. 6. Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (Core Strategy) requires all development in the public realm to be of a high quality and to be design-led, having regard to its context. Policies DMD6, DMD14 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (DMD) seek to ensure that the scale and form of new development is appropriate to the existing pattern of development. New development should have appropriate regard to its surroundings and side extensions should not result in a terracing effect. A minimum distance of one metre should be retained between the resultant dwelling and its side boundary and regard will be given to the bulk/dominance of the structure along the street frontage and its subordination in relation to the host dwelling. 7. Consistent with this, policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan 2016 require new development to make a positive contribution to a coherent public realm and should incorporate the highest quality design appropriate to its context. Proposals should have regard to the pattern and grain of existing spaces and allow existing buildings to make a positive contribution to the character of a place. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) similarly states that new development should respond to local character, reflect the identity of local surroundings and add to the quality of an area. 8. The proposed extension would follow the form, proportions and design detailing of the host dwelling and would be seen as an integral part of it. The existing two storey bay with its gable roof would remain the dominant feature on the front elevation and the proposed box bay window would mirror the existing one. The proposed ground floor window would also respect the proportions of the existing windows. 9. Whilst the proposed extension would not be set back from the front building line or lower than the main ridge height of the host dwelling, it would not be prominent or dominant. It has been designed to respect and reflect the Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3187653 3 character and appearance of the host dwelling and to be subservient to the main two storey bay feature. In addition, the extension follows the form and design of other side extensions in the road and so would be readily assimilated into the street scene. 10. The ground floor element of the proposed side extension would project up to the side boundary of the site. This would be consistent with the existing garage and so it would not impact on the existing gap between the existing dwelling and the adjacent dwelling at 82 Wynchgate (No.82). 11. The first floor element of the proposed extension would be set in some 0.62 metres from the side boundary of the site. Whilst this would be slightly less than the one metre stipulated in policy DMD14 of the DMD, the extension would not have a terracing effect in the street scene. The resultant gap above ground floor level between the Appeal dwelling and the dwelling at No.82 would be typical of and indeed greater than some of the gaps found between dwellings along Wynchgate. 12. Overall, the proposed side extension would respect and reflect the existing character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would also continue to make a positive contribution to the character of the street scene and the surrounding area. Other than the size of the gaps between the extension and the side boundary of the property the proposed extension would comply with all of the above policies in relation to character and appearance. These factors outweigh the conflict with part of criterion 1 of policy DMD14 of the DMD. 13. The proposal also includes 11 solar panels on the rear roof-slope of the resultant dwelling and six solar panels on the proposed side roof-slope. Few details have been provided regarding the colour, finish and appearance of the proposed solar panels. However typically they have a smooth finish and their frames are typically black or white. As a consequence, they can be visually stark and prominent when located on tiled roof-slopes and in this instance, they would cover a significant proportion of both roof-slopes. 14. There is no doubt that the proposed solar panels would detract from the quality, character and appearance of this traditional dwelling, the street scene and the rear garden environment. It would also detract from the outlook from nearby gardens and the adjacent dwellings in Queen Elizabeth’s Drive. 15. It is acknowledged that the NPPF states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure the delivery of renewable and low carbon and associated infrastructure. With this in mind energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings should be actively supported. At the same time any adverse visual impacts should be addressed satisfactorily. 16. In the absence of any details which demonstrate otherwise, due to their number and extent of roof coverage the visual harm that would be caused by the proposed solar panels would outweigh the energy efficiency benefits of their installation. In addition, the proposed solar panels on the side roof-slope would detract from the quality, design and appearance of the proposed extension. In view of their potential harm this is not a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by the imposition of conditions. 17. As the proposed extension and the installation of the proposed solar panels can be dealt with physically and functionally separately it would be possible to issue Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3187653 4 a split decision. As the proposed side extension would be acceptable this would be appropriate in this instance. 18. In relation to the proposed extension the Council has suggested the imposition of conditions relating to the use of matching external materials and adherence to the submitted drawings. Both of these conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposed extension blends in appropriately with the host dwelling and in the interests of certainty. 19. I conclude on the main issue that the proposed side extension would reflect and respect the character and appearance of the host building, the street scene and the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with policy CP30 of the CS, policies DMD6 & DMD37 of the DMD, most aspects and the objectives of policy DMD14 of the DMD, policies 7.4 & 7.6 of The London Plan and the NPPF. Conversely the proposed solar panels would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene and the surrounding area, contrary to the above policies. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR