99, Severn Drive, EN1 4LY

1. 1.The proposed first floor side extension, by virtue of its siting, width, alignment with the side boundary and failure to provide a set-in, would remove the established gap at first floor level and result in a terracing effect, giving rise to a continuous built frontage that would appear visually intrusive, overly dominant and out of keeping with the established pattern, rhythm and grain of development within the street scene, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD14 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2. 2.The proposed development, by virtue of the cumulative depth, height, scale and massing of the ground floor rear extension, first floor rear extension and roof level enlargement, would form a layered and vertically stacked composition that lacks a clear hierarchy and fails to appear subordinate, resulting in an unduly bulky, top-heavy and overdeveloped form that would appear visually intrusive, incongruous and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D3, D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2024), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD11, DMD13, DMD 14 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
3. 3.The proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its flat roof set beneath the main pitched roof, would create an incongruous and poorly related addition. It would appear visually discordant and overly dominant, failing to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D3, D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
4. 4.The proposed full-width rear dormer, by reason of its excessive width, lack of set-in from the roof edges, and bulky form, would appear dominant and poorly integrated within the existing roof. Its design fails to respect the proportions and shape of the host roof and results in a visually intrusive and incongruous addition. The development would therefore be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D3, D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
5. 5.The proposed ground floor extension, by virtue of its height, depth, siting and proximity to the shared boundary, would introduce a dominant built form projecting substantially beyond the neighbouring rear elevation and rising above the existing boundary treatment. This would result in a pronounced sense of enclosure and a material loss of light and outlook for 97 and 101 Severn Drive. The development would therefore appear overbearing and unneighbourly, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3, D4 and D5of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).

From the council's decision notice.

Postcode

EN1 4LY

Application type

Householder planning permission

Architect profile

GOLDENSWORD LTD