First floor side extension involving extension to roof at side and changes to fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRPTI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009651 15 Townsend Avenue, Southgate, Enfield N14 7HH • 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 & Mrs Tareque and Ellora Choudhury and Haque against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield. • The application Ref is 26/00203/HOU. • The development proposed is first floor side extension involving extension to roof at side and changes to fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated on a corner plot. It is within an area that is characterised by pairs of semi-detached dwellings of similar appearance that are set back from the roadside. Many of the nearby properties have been subject to side extensions but they generally take a similar design approach to their host. There is therefore a pleasant consistency to the street scene which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 5. The proposal would be deliberately contemporary and as such contrasting with the host dwelling. In so being however, it would introduce a two-storey flat roofed side extension with a jarring blocky appearance. The tall rectangular windows would be an unacceptable contrast to the traditional, more horizontally emphasised multi pane windows seen in the appeal property. The height of the extension would awkwardly sit above the eaves of the existing property and would appear as an uncomfortable bolt-on. Combining all of these factors with the prominence of the property on a corner plot and therefore the uninterrupted views of the extension that there would be, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area by unacceptably undermining the quality of its consistency. Appeal Decision 6009651 2 6. It would therefore conflict with Policies D3 of The London Plan 2021, CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 and DMD8, DMD14 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document 2014 which are concerned with development positively responding to local distinctiveness amongst other things. Other Matters 7. A number of nearby properties have been subject to side extensions. However, they generally take a design approach that is more reflective of the original style of the house with an eaves height in line with or below the existing property. The examples provided are therefore not directly comparable to the appeal scheme or the specifics of its context. 8. A lack of harm with regard to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants would be neutral in any balance of considerations. Similarly, any lack of symmetry between the semi-detached dwellings is not a contentious matter in the appeal. The use of some matching materials would be welcomed but would not outweigh the overall harm that I have identified. Although the first floor of the extension would be marginally set back, this alone would not give the extension an acceptable subordinance due to its overall design. 9. I am unaware of when, or if the alterations to the existing roof are going to be developed and I have therefore assessed the appeal scheme in terms of the current context. That being said, even if the hip to gable alteration were to be carried out, the overtly modern appearance of the extension would still garner a jarring effect. Furthermore, any alleged private betterment for the occupants from a previous approval for a side extension at the site or any reduction in volume from that scheme would not be sufficient to overcome the harm that I have found. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR