Front porch extension plus timber fencing for the rear roof terrace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2018 by Tim Wood BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/17/3190501 65 King Edwards Road, Enfield EN3 7DA  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 Janusz Chelchowski against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 17/03058/HOU, dated 6 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 September 2017.  The development proposed is a front porch extension plus timber fencing for the rear roof terrace. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The development has already been undertaken and I had the benefit of seeing it at my site visit. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on the character of the area and on the living conditions of neighbours. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a 2 storey terraced house set within an area of similar traditionally designed properties. The alterations to the front have resulted in a porch and bay of brick, which contrasts with the painted render of the front elevation. 5. It would appear that the property originally had an angled bay at the ground floor. A porch has been constructed which also spans most of the front elevation at ground floor, removing the angled bay and replacing it with a flat- faced section. 6. I consider that the proposal appears awkward and at odds with the remainder of the house. It appears as an ad hoc addition which has no reference to the original design of the house. My attention has been drawn to other front extensions within the road, which I observed at my visit. Many of these are different to the proposal, although there are one or two that are very similar. In my judgement these are not successful additions to the area. The Council points out that the great majority have not been undertaken with planning Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/17/3190501 2 permission and I consider that they should not be used as precedents for further harmful extensions in the area, such as the proposal. 7. Although the Council states that the materials match the house, I consider that the brick extension at the front contrasts with the other materials on the frontage. The appellant points out that the Council has stated that the front extension does not affect the residential amenity of neighbours, which he states is inconsistent with the Council’s conclusions of harm to the character of the area. I do not agree with the appellant; the Council make clear reference to any possible effects on outlook and light (and concludes no harm) which is quite separate from the effects on the character of the area. 8. The development at the rear has enclosed a flat roof with fencing around 3 sides. The flat roof is to a single storey rear projection and the development has formed a roof terrace. The fencing is visible from the garden areas of neighbours and from some windows of neighbouring properties, particularly from the first floor window at No 63, immediately adjacent. 9. In the wider context, I consider that the enclosure of the roof terrace in the manner that has been constructed has resulted in a feature that appears significantly out of place and at odds with other residential properties in the area; to the extent that it has a negative effect on the character of the area. Furthermore, its size and proximity to other residential properties and their gardens means that it appears overbearing when seen from these neighbouring homes and reduces light and outlook to the properties. Conclusions 10. For the reasons given above, I consider that the proposal has an unacceptable effect on the character of the area and the living conditions of neighbours. As a consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan, Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy and Policies DMD11 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document and there are no considerations sufficient to outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. S T Wood INSPECTOR