Ground floor single storey flat roof extension, 6m deep x 3m high. Extension to be smooth float rendered. Sliding glass door, swing door and windows to be alu-clad timber framed. Skylight to flat roof to be flat and frameless

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 December 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) Dip TP Dip UDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3208854 71 Morton Way, Arnos Grove, London N14 7HN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO).  The appeal is made by Mr Alberto Cohen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 18/01839/PRH, dated 12 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 June 2018.  The development proposed is a ground floor single storey flat roof extension, 6m deep x 3m high. Extension to be smooth float rendered. Sliding glass door, swing door and windows to be alu-clad timber framed. Skylight to flat roof to be flat and frameless. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a ground floor single storey flat roof extension, 6m deep x 3m high; Extension to be smooth float rendered; Sliding glass door, swing door and windows to be alu-clad timber framed; Skylight to flat roof to be flat and frameless at 71 Morton Way, Arnos Grove, London N14 7HN in accordance with the application Ref 18/01839/PRH and the details submitted with it [including plan nos 137-S01; 137-S02; 137-GS01_P3; 137-GA00/01_P4 and 137- GE01_P3], made on 12 December 2017 pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). Procedural Matters 2. As an objection was received from the occupier of 12 Morton Way, the prior approval of the local planning authority was required as to the impact of appeal proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premises. The Council subsequently refused prior approval solely on this basis. 3. The Council assert in the Officer Report that the depth of the extension would be 6.2 metres, rather than the 6 metres stipulated by the appellant, as shown marked on the proposed plans and application form. The Council have not raised this as a reason for refusal, and the appellant has reaffirmed in his submission that the extension would be no greater than 6 metres in depth. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I have dealt with the appeal on this basis of the listed refusal reason on the Council’s decision notice. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3208854 2 Main Issue 4. The provisions of the GPDO require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of the appeal has been made in the same manner. Reasons 5. The host property is a semi-detached house, within a suburban residential area. When viewing the rear elevation of the host dwelling from the rear garden, it adjoins 69 Morton Way to the left, and 12 Morton Way is sited to the right, and set back appreciably from the rear elevation. The rear garden at the appeal site is bounded by a wooden panel fencing approximately 2.0 metres in height and by vegetation. The ground level of No 71 increases towards its rear boundary as a result of the topography of the appeal site. 6. Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 (CS) seeks to secure high quality places through good design. Policy DMD 11 of the Enfield Council Development Management Document 2004 (DMD) requires single storey rear extensions to have no impact on the amenities of the original building and its neighbouring properties; not exceed 3 metres in depth beyond the original rear wall in the case of terraced and semi-detached properties; in the case of a flat roof, the single storey extension should not exceed a height of 3 metres from ground level when measured to the eaves with an allowance of between 3.3 to 3.5 metres to the top of a parapet wall, and not exceed a line taken at 45 degrees from the mid-point of the nearest original ground floor window to any of the adjacent properties. 7. The Council confirm in the Officer Report that no adverse effects will occur to the occupiers of No 69 and I agree with this observation, as I too noted the existing single storey rear extension present at that property, which the appeal proposal only slightly extends beyond, before it steps away. The main area of concern is surrounding the effect on the occupiers of No 12, which is an end terraced property, sited behind the rear elevation of No 71, and at a slightly lower level due to the changing topography. 8. The terrace, which incorporates No 12, is sited on a different building line to No 71, which results in the rear elevation of No 12 facing in the direction of the appeal site. The appellant has provided in his submission a series of sun path analysis scenarios and outlook/enclosure diagrams to support his case. This evidence seeks to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in a harmful loss of sunlight to either No 12 or its garden, and that the outlook from the ground floor of No 12 would not be significantly harmed either. No assessment has been provided from the first floor windows at No 12, but it was evident on my visit that these windows would look above and across the scheme. I consider that these visualisations reflect the site circumstances, as they concur with the findings obtained from my site visit. Consequently, I do consider that a harmful loss of sunlight would not occur as majority of the garden would still experience similar conditions throughout the day, regardless whether or not the proposal was to be constructed. 9. The proposal would be sited away from the boundary with No 12, and the wooden fencing is stepped due to the increasing land levels. Additionally, I note the overall orientation of No 71 and No 12, and the distance maintained Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3208854 3 between these dwellings. Although the Council have referred to a breach of the 45 degree line, I consider that the proposal would be set away from No 12, by a sufficient distance to prevent any significant harmful effects from the proposal to any neighbouring habitable room windows. Additionally, in my view, the existing timber fence would hide the majority of the proposed extension from the outlook of No 12 at its ground floor, especially as it would have a flat roof and be only 3 metres in height. These factors would also prevent the proposal from having an enclosing effect on the rear garden of No 12. 10. Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers by reason of loss of sun/day light, outlook or form an increased sense of enclosure. Therefore, the development would not conflict with Core Policy 30 of the CS and Policy DMD 11 of the DMD. Accordingly, the development proposal complies with Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted. Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions A.4(13), A.4(14) and A.4(15), which specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30 May 2019, that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion, and such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. W Johnson INSPECTOR