Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2019 by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3215584 20 Broomfield Avenue, Southgate N13 4JN • 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 N Christofi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield. • The application Ref 18/02298/HOU, dated 8 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 August 2018. • The development proposed was originally described as a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights at 20 Broomfield Avenue, Southgate N13 4JN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02298/HOU, dated 8 June 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2018-1252/1 and 2018/1252/2. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling on the site. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed in the development hereby approved. Procedural matter 2. In the decision above I have use the description of the development given on the appeal form and on the Council’s decision as it describes the development more accurately than the description given originally on the application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Lakes Estate Conservation Area (LECA). Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3215584 2 Reasons 4. The LECA is a predominantly residential area mainly comprising long rows of semi-detached houses of a generally uniform scale and design. The dwellings along the part of Broomfield Avenue within which the appeal site sits are particularly distinctive in that they have two parts to their roof: a pitched roof over the front part of the house, and then a second pitched roof over the rear part with a valley in between the two. 5. The proposed development comprises three parts: an extension to the side of the front roof to change it from a hip end to a gable end, a rear facing dormer in the valley, and two rooflights on the roofslope facing the road. 6. The extension to form a gable end would reflect the eaves, ridge and gradient of the existing roof and, with the use of materials to match the existing roof, would be sympathetic to the appearance of the existing dwelling. Furthermore, though the corresponding part of the roof in the majority of the houses in the street are hipped, there are examples of gable ends such as at Nos 8 and 33. Most relevantly, the semi-detached dwelling attached to the appeal property, at No 18, has a gable end. The extension would therefore mirror that gable end, adding balance and symmetry to the pair of dwellings. 7. The proposed rear dormer’s position in the valley between the front and rear roofs means it would not be visible from Broomfield Avenue and only the very top part of it would be visible from the park behind the house. Moreover, when seen from the rear it would be comparable in scale and appearance to the adjacent dormer extension at No 18, and to that at No 2. There is also a similar rear dormer, albeit smaller, at No 16. As such whilst it would not meet the inset distances set out in policy DMD 13 of the Development Management Document (DMD), it would not appear inharmonious in its context. 8. The two roof lights would be modest in size. There are a number of other properties in the street which also have front facing roof lights, including three of varying sizes at No 18. As such I do not consider those proposed would appear incongruous in the street scene. 9. I understand the LECA Appraisal advises that front facing rooflights and box dormers are not appropriate. Nonetheless, in the context of No 18 which has both these features, I do not consider the development would harm the character or appearance of the LECA. Indeed, overall, no part of the development would appear incongruous in its setting. 10. Consequently, though the proposal would conflict with policy DMD 13, this conflict is outweighed by its accordance with policy DMD 37 of the DMD, CP30 of the Core Strategy (CS) and 7.4 of the London Plan (LP) which all require development to have regard to its surroundings, and policies DMD 44 of the DMD, CP31 of the CS and 7.8 of the LP which all aim to ensure development conserves the significance of heritage assets. I have not been provided with a copy of policy DMD 8 of the DMD so cannot attest to its degree of consistency with that. Other matters 11. I note the concerns that the proposal would facilitate the use of the property as a House of Multiple Occupation. However I have no evidence to suggest that is what would result from the development. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3215584 3 Conditions 12. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions and in accordance with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework I have imposed the standard condition relating to the commencement of development and a condition specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. I have also included a condition relating to finishing materials to protect the character and appearance of the LECA and a condition preventing the insertion of additional windows so as to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR