Erection of a first floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2018 by Richard Schofield BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 5th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y5420/D/18/3213368 17 Franklin Street, Tottenham, London N15 6QH  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 Reichman against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Haringey.  The application Ref HGY/2018/2553, dated 9 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2018.  The development proposed is erection of a first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. 17 Franklin Street is part of a four house terrace, situated on a street that is overwhelmingly characterised by similar dwellings. Unremarkable in architectural terms, they retain simple, unaffected rear elevations at first floor level. With the sole exception of that at No 11, two-storey rear extensions are not a characteristic of the area. This means that there is a sense of space when in the rear yards, with no feeling of being hemmed in by overbearing development. 4. There is a dispute between the parties as to the lawfulness of the extension at No 11. Assuming, for the sake of this decision only, that it benefits from planning permission I do not consider that it can be considered as setting any kind of a precedent for the appeal proposal. It appears as an incongruous intrusion into the run of simple rear elevations, at odds with the dominant appearance of the area when viewed from the rear of surrounding dwellings. 5. Given its situation (above an extent, deep rear extension) and depth, the appeal proposal would be even more intrusive, appearing as a domineering addition in views from neighbouring dwellings and, indeed, from the allotments at the end of Franklin Street. It would site very uncomfortably with the local vernacular. Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/D/18/3213368 2 6. I conclude that the proposed extension would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management Development Plan Document; policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan; and policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan. These seek, among other things, to ensure that new development, including extensions to residential buildings, is of a high quality and sensitive design. Other Matters 7. It is suggested that the appellant requires the extension to accommodate their large family, so that they don’t grow up in cramped and unhealthy conditions. I also note the assertion that the children have to use bunk beds (which is far from uncommon). 8. Notwithstanding that there did not appear to be anything fundamentally wrong with the house, in terms of size, situation or condition, given that it was vacant and in the process of being redeveloped it is hard to give much credence to this assertion. Even if that was not the case, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the appeal scheme is the only solution to any accommodation needs. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, and taking all other matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Schofield INSPECTOR