Proposed development is ground floor extension, conversion of existing garage and two storey side extension to an existing semi-detached dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 September 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012598 21 Merrivale, London N14 4TE • 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 Peter Langley against the decision of Enfield Council. • The application Ref. is 26/00675/HOU. • The proposed development is ground floor extension, conversion of existing garage and two storey side extension to an existing semi-detached dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. The policies relevant to this appeal have not materially changed therefore further comments have not been invited from the parties and it is not considered that any prejudice arises as a result. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a large two-storey semi-detached dwelling set at the end of a row of similar dwellings within a residential area. Immediately to the west of the appeal site is a Baptist Church set back from the road frontage within spacious open grounds. A vehicular entrance to the church immediately adjoins the western boundary of the appeal site along which runs a driveway leading to a parking area which is located to the rear of the long garden of the appeal site. 5. The dwelling has been recently altered and extended involving the conversion of the roof from a hip to gable end with large rear flat roofed dormer to create accommodation within the roofspace. This alteration has introduced a large flank wall to the dwelling comprising a sloped front element and flat roofed rear element as the rear dormer has not been set in from the eaves. It is a prominent feature in the street scene which can be viewed across the open frontage of the church site appearing somewhat incongruous within an area predominantly characterised by hipped roofs. Appeal Decision 6012598 2 6. The proposed two-storey side addition would serve to obscure a large part of this gable end thus reducing its visual impact. However, the design of its roof being a low, long hipped roof would be at odds with the gable end that has been created, resulting in an awkward juxtaposition between the two. In views from the side, the upper part of the flank wall with its oddly shaped rear roof profile would extend above the sloping roof of the extension resulting in an unsympathetic mixture of roof shapes. 7. The impact from the front would be less jarring but nevertheless result in an uncoordinated mix of hipped and pitched roofs exacerbated by the forward position of the proposed extension relative to the existing front projection from which it would be set back by only a small amount. Overall, the extension would result in a poor design that would detract from the host dwelling and wider street scene. 8. For the above reasons the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. It would therefore be contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the London Borough of Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8, DMD14 and DMD37 of Enfield’s Development Management Document (2014) which, amongst other things, expect new development to contribute towards achieving sustainable, high quality design which respects and enhances local character and helps create attractive new townscapes and extensions to dwellings that have regard to the character of the existing property and the bulk/dominance of the proposal along the street frontage and in relation to the existing dwelling. 9. Furthermore, the development fails to satisfy Framework policies the objective of which is to promote high quality places through development proposals that respond to context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Conclusion 10. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR