Erection of a side and rear extension including enlargement of the existing rear extension; loft conversion with rear roof extension and rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 September 2026 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011358 73 Great Cambridge Road, Tottenham, London N17 7LN • 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 Dersim Orhan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Haringey. • The application Ref. is HGY/2026/0812. • The development proposed is the erection of a side and rear extension including enlargement of the existing rear extension; loft conversion with rear roof extension and rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed alterations and additions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part, and the street scene at the junction of Great Cambridge Road and a side road, Devonshire Hill Lane. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling forms the southern end of a long terrace of houses of essentially the same design fronting onto Great Cambridge Road. This end position increases its prominence, because in addition to the front elevation it enables both short and longer views across the junction of its flank and rear. 4. The angle of the side road is such that the appeal site is wedged shaped. And with the appeal scheme proposing a two-storey addition tight to the footpath for the full length of the two-storey element of the existing building, this description also applies to the extension. 5. As regards the proposed extension’s effect on the front elevation to Great Cambridge Road, the continuation of the existing ridge and eaves lines and the absence of any set-back from the front wall would fail to achieve the subordination necessary to avoid harm to the appearance of the house. By the same token these factors would have an adverse effect on the symmetry and rhythm of the terrace that provides a pleasing frontage to Great Cambridge Road. 6. When seen from Devonshire Hill Lane, the proposed hip to gable alteration and 8.6m width dormer roof extension, and to a lesser extent the extended flat roof ground extension, would combine to result in a perception of an overly extended building on this prominent corner site. Appeal Decision Ref. 6011358 2 7. The absence of any fenestration in the extended flank of the building, unlike the existing, would compound the unsympathetic design, and overall the appeal scheme would result in an end of terrace dwelling that unduly prioritises the advantages of additional living space over design merit and a positive contribution to the public realm. 8. For the appellant it is argued that extensions, loft conversions and roof alterations are already common features of the local townscape and that the end of terrace position of the appeal dwelling provides a unique opportunity for additional development. Reference is also made to precedents from existing extensions of a substantial size to corner properties at Nos. 99 and 101 Great Cambridge Road. 9. I inspected these at the time of my visit and although all three buildings would adjoin the pavement, Devonshire Hill Lane has a far more open aspect when seen from Great Cambridge Road than is the case with Mayfair Gardens. Furthermore, both dwellings at the latter maintain the frontage symmetry of their respective terraces and No. 101 has neither a dormer extension nor a hip to gable addition. The rear of No. 99 does have extensions of a significant size, but I am unable to cite these as positive examples meriting additional weight for the appellant’s case in this appeal. 10. Overall, I find that the appeal scheme would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the wider terrace, and the street scene. Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policies DM1 & DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD 2017; Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013-2026 adopted 2017; Policies D3 & D6 of the London Plan 2021, and with Government policy in Policy DP3 in Section 14: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework August 2026. 11. The appeal therefore fails. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR