For a first floor side extension and creation of 2 No. off street parking spaces

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/17/3188627 White Lodge, Cuckoo Hall Lane, London, N9 8DH  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 Abdul Kayum against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 17/02639/HOU, dated 12 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 August 2017.  The development proposed is for a first floor side extension and creation of 2 No. off street parking spaces. Preliminary matter 1. It is noted that a Certificate of Lawfulness has been granted for the conversion of the existing attached garage into a habitable room. The Appeal scheme includes the retention of the existing garage and the Appeal has to be determined on this basis. The subsequent conversion of the existing garage to habitable accommodation is something that could be controlled through the imposition of a condition, if considered necessary and reasonable. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 3. The first main issue is the effect of the proposed scheme on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the surrounding area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposed scheme on the living conditions of the occupiers of 11a Cuckoo Hall Lane, (No.11a), with particular regard to visual impact. The third main issue is the effect of the proposed scheme on highway safety, the provision of on-street parking spaces and the promotion of alternative transport options. Reasons Character and appearance 4. Cuckoo Hall Lane and the surrounding area is primarily characterised by rows of uniformly designed, modest sized, two storey terraced houses with small gaps between the individual terraces. The terraces, which are from a limited range of detailed designs, have hipped and gable pitched roofs and many Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3188627 2 include two storey bay window features on the front elevations. Typically, the dwellings have rough rendered walls and plain tiled roofs and are set behind small front gardens. 5. Conversely, the Appeal dwelling is sited very close to the back edge of the pavement and bears little resemblance to the other dwellings in the road. It comprises a large two storey detached dwelling with a shallow pitched roof hidden behind parapet walls. It is finished in smooth render and has a flat roofed porch on the western side elevation. Attached to the east side of the dwelling is a flat roofed single storey extension which projects to the rear of the dwelling and comprises a garage, bathroom, W.C and storage shed. To the east of the Appeal dwelling is a modern terrace of two storey dwellings that are set back from the street scene and to the west is a small flat roofed commercial building, with a small modern church beyond. 6. Together and amongst other things policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (CS) and policies DMD14 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (DMD), seek to maintain and improve the quality of the built environment. 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. Policy 7.4 of The London Plan 2016 similarly requires new development to have regard to the form, function and structure of an area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that new development should respond to local character, reflect the identity of local surroundings and add to the quality of an area. 7. The proposed extension would be sited above the existing single storey side extension. It would have a flat roof and a parapet wall which is sited and designed as a continuation of the existing parapet wall. The proportions, design detailing, materials and finishes of the proposed extension would match those of the existing dwelling and it would be set back from the front wall of the host dwelling by some 3.7 metres. As a consequence, the proposed extension would respect and be visually subservient to the host dwelling and would not be visible in the street scene when approaching the property from the west. 8. Whilst the proposed extension would project up to the side boundary of the Appeal site, the adjacent gap to the side of 11a would be comparable to other gaps within the street scene. Due to the width of this gap, the different front and rear building lines of the two properties and their totally different appearance, the proposed extension would not result in a terracing effect within the street scene. In addition, the trees to the rear of the Appeal building would still be visible through the gap at the side of No.11a, albeit such views would be more limited. 9. When viewed from the east the extension would be visually subservient to and would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Because the proposed extension would be set in from the front wall of the host dwelling it would be visually discrete and would respect the spatial characteristics of the street scene and the area as a whole. 10. For these reasons I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed extension would respect the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the surrounding area. Accordingly, In this respect, it Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3188627 3 would comply with policy CP30 of the CS, policy DMD37 of the DMD, policy 7.4 of the London Plan and the NPPF. Whilst the proposed extension would not comply fully with criterion 1) of policy DMD14 of the DMD, it would comply with its objectives and the other relevant criteria set out in that policy. As such, the failure to leave a one metre gap between the side extension and the side boundary of the site would not amount to a reason for dismissing this Appeal. Living conditions 11. The proposed extension would project up to the eastern boundary of the site, where it would project forward of the front wall of the adjacent dwelling at No.11a by in excess of five metres. Due to its proximity, mass and forward projection it would visually dominate and have an unduly enclosing impact on the outlook from the adjacent front facing windows, front door, front garden and side passageway at No.11. Its overbearing visual impact would be exacerbated by the associated loss of daylight within the adjacent garden and side passageway at No.11a. 12. This harm would outweigh the benefits for the Appellant and his family that would result from the proposed additional accommodation. 13. I therefore conclude on the second main issue that the proposed extension would materially and unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.11a, due to its overbearing visual impact. The scheme would therefore conflict with policy DMD37 of the DMD and policy CP30 of the CS. Together and amongst other things these policies seek to ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to residents’ quality of life. Highway safety 14. Collectively policies DMD45, DMD46 and DMD47 of the DMP and policy 6.13 of the London Plan seek to achieve an appropriate balance between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine walking, cycling and public transport use. The policies also seek to meet the operational parking needs of new development, whilst not increasing the pressure for on-street parking. On-site parking provision should include adequate sight lines and should not have an adverse impact on the free flow of traffic. 15. The Appeal property already has a vehicular access, an on-site parking space and a garage, which would all be retained with the proposed scheme. This on- site vehicular access and parking provision fully complies with policy DMD45 of the DMP, the Council’s adopted Footway Crossover Guidance 2013 (FCG) and The London Plan. Collectively they seek to restrict the number of vehicle crossovers serving an individual dwelling to one and set a maximum on-site parking standard of 2 parking spaces. The reasons for this are to retain adequate levels of on-street parking, to promote sustainable transport options and in the interests of pedestrian safety. 16. The proposed scheme includes the provision of an additional vehicular crossover on the west side of the dwelling, which would serve two tandem parking spaces. The resultant on-site parking provision would exceed the adopted maximum parking standards and would result in the loss of one on- street public parking space. The proposed vehicular access would fail to provide adequate pedestrian visibility. It would also fail to provide adequate space for Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3188627 4 vehicles to wait clear of the highway whilst the entrance gates were open and shut, which would block the pavement and affect the free flow of traffic. As a result of these factors the proposed new vehicular access would unnecessarily increase highway risks for pedestrians, motorists and cyclists. 17. I conclude on the third main issue that the proposed additional vehicular crossover would have an adverse impact on pedestrian highway safety, result in an over-provision of On-site parking and would place increased pressure on the supply of on-street parking. It would therefore conflict with policies DMD45, DMD46 and DMD47 of the DMP, policy 6.13 of The London Plan and the FCG. Conclusion 18. The conclusions on the second two main issues amount to compelling reasons for dismissing this Appeal which could not be satisfactorily dealt with through the imposition of conditions. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR