Rear canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009044 46 Lansbury Avenue, Edmonton N18 1DD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ekrem Dogan against the decision of Enfield Council. • The application reference is 26/00072/HOU. • The development proposed is a rear canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear canopy at 46 Lansbury Avenue, Edmonton in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 26/00072/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development relates to the following approved plans: PP-14607315v1, EKREM-01-PL02, EKREM-01-PL03 and EKREM-01-PL04. 2) Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing EKREM-01-PL03, the existing side panels and other elements of the structure, above the height of the existing boundary to each side, other than the framework of the canopy and its roof, shall be removed within six months of this decision. Replacement side panels shall not be installed until details of the materials to be used have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. A canopy has already been erected to the rear of this property. Given the position of a similar height canopy within the garden of 48 Lansbury Avenue, the appeal canopy has a limited impact on the outlook from that adjoining garden. It extends along the adjoining boundary with number 44 and it is visible over the fences from Lansbury Way. Given its limited height, it is not overbearing for the neighbouring residents. However, the sides of the structure and other additional elements associated with it, between the properties, on both boundaries, are of a particularly poor appearance due to the materials used. 4. Despite the canopy being in the back garden and of limited wider prominence, the materials, other than those of the structure and the roof form, ensure that it Appeal Decision: 6009044 2 represents poor design. It is therefore contrary to Policy D3(12) of the London Plan 2021; Core Policy 30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010; and policies DMD11(1c) and DMD37(1) of the Development Management Document 2014. 5. The appellant has indicated that the side elements could be removed or replaced with improved materials. It would be necessary to remove the existing side panels to make the canopy acceptable. A condition requiring this would address this concern. Should side panels as shown on the plans be considered necessary by the appellant, the details of the materials to be used should be submitted to and agreed by the council as alternative materials have not been specified. This too can be required by condition. 6. Concern has been raised that the structure has extended beyond the legal extent of the site as the actual boundary does not follow exactly that of the existing fence. This is a legal matter between the neighbouring owners. However, the plans show the proposal within the red line area and this permission does not convey any consent beyond the area shown and referenced within the ownership declaration set out in the application form. Other concerns with regard to structures on or close to the boundary are similarly matters beyond the scope of this assessment. 7. Subject to the removal of the side panels, I am satisfied that the canopy would be acceptable. Similarly, with appropriate materials, replacement side panels within the red line area, would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area; or to the outlook of neighbouring residents. I therefore allow the appeal. 8. I have not imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development as the works are already in place. I have made reference to the plans which show the area of the canopy within the red line. I have required that the elements, other than the frame of the structure and the roof form, be removed to ensure that the existing poor appearance of the sides of the canopy are removed. I have required that this is undertaken within six months. This is a longer period than is necessary in order to allow for any replacement details for the side panels, if considered necessary, to be agreed with the council during that time. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR