Erection of a 2-storey side and part rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 July 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3201203 20 Norman Way, Southgate N14 6NA  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 Mitchell Kenny against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 18/00109/HOU was refused by notice dated 7 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a 2-storey side and part rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. At the site visit, construction work was underway at the side and rear of the appeal property. I saw that the dormer extension on the rear roof slope had different windows and appeared to be slightly larger than that shown on the plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the proposal as it is illustrated on the drawings because it was on that basis that the Council refused planning permission. 3. I have assessed the proposed development in the light of revised National Planning Policy Framework that was issued on 24 July 2018. Main issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development firstly, on the character and appearance of the local area; and secondly, on the living conditions of the occupiers of 70b and 72 Oakfield Road with particular regard to visual impact and sense of enclosure. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached houses in a mainly residential area wherein buildings are similar in age and type although vary in style and size. Like some properties close to the site, No 20 has been externally altered and extended. In particular, the hipped end to the main roof has been converted to a gable end and a flat roof dormer extension has been placed onto the extended rear roof slope. At ground floor level, there is a sizable flat roof addition at the back of No 20. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3201203 2 6. The proposal includes a 2-storey side and rear extension that takes the flank wall out to the side boundary of the site with the new first floor element set back from the new rear build line. The pitch of the new-hipped roof above the side extension would be steeper than some nearby properties although the angle would broadly follow that of the cat slide roof at the front and thus would not draw the eye. Furthermore, with ample space around the front and side of the finished dwelling, the proposal would not appear from the road to be cramped in terms of layout or overdeveloped in relation to the plot. 7. At the rear, the proposal would, however, result in the ground floor addition extending across almost the full width of the plot, therefore exceeding the width of the main house. This element of the appeal scheme would add disproportionate scale and bulk to the appeal dwelling and cause it to visually dominate the new rear façade. At a higher level, the line of the main ridge would be carried over the side extension with the rear dormer cut into the hipped roof of the new first floor rear projection. This arrangement would result in an incongruous detail where one side of the dormer would appear to have been truncated to fit the space available. While this would make efficient use of the roof space, the visual effect would be contrived and unconvincing because the dormer would appear overly wide and ill fitting on the rear roof. When seen together, the proposed ground floor and roof level extensions would result in a cumbersome enlargement of the appeal dwelling. In the light of the cumulative impact on the appeal dwelling, the proposal would form unwieldy features in the new rear façade and be visually obtrusive. 8. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account the proposed use of external materials to match the existing building. I also acknowledge that views of the rear additions from public vantage points would be limited given its position at the back of the main house. These elements of the appeal scheme would, however, be evident from the garden of the attached property. When viewed from this vantage point, the proposed extensions at the rear of the property would appear to be uncharacteristically large and poorly fitting. 9. I note that the Council has recently issued a certificate of lawfulness for a roof extension to form a gable end with a dormer. I also acknowledge that the Council has confirmed that prior approval is not required for a 6-metre deep single storey rear extension. While these options are both realistic fallbacks for the appellant, none involve a ground floor extension across almost the full width of the plot or a rear dormer in the same relationship to the host building as the appeal scheme. Consequently, I attach limited weight to these alternatives in support of the appeal. 10. Having walked around the local area, I saw that some of the elements proposed here are replicated on other properties including rear dormers and buildings that have been extended to fill the width of the plot. The appellant has also referred to and provided photographs of extended properties elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is a central principle of the planning system that every proposal should be considered on its own merits. Having done so, my own conclusion is that the proposed changes at the rear would be on a scale where the form of the host building would be unduly compromised and there would be a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3201203 3 Living conditions 11. The proposed side extension would be up to and parallel with the rears of 70b and 72 Oakfield Road, which back onto the side of the site. As a result, the flank wall of the new side extension would partly enclose the rearmost section of the long back gardens of these neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, reasonably generous distances would separate the rear elevations of Nos 70b and 72 and there would be some screening provided by planting, an outbuilding and the boundary fence. 12. The sidewall of the proposal would be in close proximity to the back gardens to these neighbouring properties, which appear to provide the main outdoor space for their occupiers and visitors. Even so, the effect of the new development would not be so great as to overbear on the users of the adjacent gardens nor would it significantly heighten a sense of enclosure. Hence, the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 70b and 72 would not be materially reduced. Consequently, I find no material conflict with the policies cited by the Council insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. Conclusion on the main issues 13. Notwithstanding my favourable finding on the second main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Core Policy 30 of The Enfield Plan: Core Strategy 2010-2025 and Policies DMD 13, DMD 14 and DMD 37 of the Council’s Development Management Document. It is also at odds with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan. These policies aim to ensure that development achieves high quality design, has no adverse visual impact and is in keeping with the character of the property and the local area. Other matters 14. Once complete, the extra accommodation would improve the living conditions of the appeal building’s occupiers. There would be sufficient space for parking at the front and a good-sized back garden would remain with the new built form in place. The site is highly accessible by public transport and is close to local shops. The proposals make efficient use of the appeal property. There would also be some benefits to the local economy during the construction phase and I agree that recent changes to the planning system have sought to make it easier for occupiers to extend and improve their homes. However, none of these considerations outweigh the harm that I have identified. Conclusion 15. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR