263 Mount Pleasant Road, LONDON, N17 6HD

263 Mount Pleasant Road, LONDON, N17 6HD — London Borough of Haringey — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2021 by Steven Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/Y5420/W/20/3261354 263 Mount Pleasant Road, Tottenham,London N17 6HD • 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 Schriber against the decision of London Borough of Haringey. • The application Ref: HGY/2020/1939, dated 23 July 2020, was refused by notice dated 15 October 2020. • The development is described as ‘the retention of a reduced rear roof dormer on top of the main house’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a rear roof dormer on top of the main house at 263 Mount Pleasant Road, Tottenham N17 6HD in accordance with the terms of application Ref HGY/2020/1939, dated 23 July 2020 and the plans numbered MPR.263.EX.01; MPR.263.EX.02; MPR.263.PR.01.A;MPR.263.PR.02; MPR.263.Pre-EX.01; MPR.263.Pre-Ex.02 and the submitted site location plan. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Schriber against the London Borough of Haringey.

263 Mount Pleasant Road, LONDON, N17 6HD — London Borough of Haringey — Appeal Decision This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeal proposal is described by the appellant as ‘the retention of a reduced rear roof dormer on top of the main house’. I have determined the appeal omitting the word ‘reduced’ from the description of development in the interest of precision. 4. The dormer window identified in the description of development above has already been constructed. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that retrospective planning permission is sought for this dormer as built. A new London Plan 2021 (LP) was published in March 2021 and this post-dates the Council’s refusal notice. This now forms part of the development plan for the area. As part of the determination of this appeal, I afforded the main parties an opportunity to comment upon the implications of this change for the purposes of determining this appeal.. I have therefore determined this appeal in accordance with the the development plan including the LP 2021. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

263 Mount Pleasant Road, LONDON, N17 6HD — London Borough of Haringey — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/W/20/3261354 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. Number 263 Mount Pleasant Road, like its adjoining properties, is originally a two-storey dwelling with a two-storey outrigger to the rear. Most of the adjoining properties have simple, largely unaltered roofs but the appeal property includes a dormer on top of the outrigger. The local planning authority (LPA) does not dispute that this dormer is lawful. 7. The appeal relates to the box dormer window with the main rear roof. This is set below the ridge and occupies approximately half of the main roof. 8. It cannot be seen from any public vantage point and appears proportionate and subservient in scale with the host property. It assimilates well when seen in the context of the dormer on the outrigger. In these respects, it is of acceptable design and does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property or area. 9.

263 Mount Pleasant Road, LONDON, N17 6HD — London Borough of Haringey — Appeal Decision For the above reasons, I conclude that the development accords with policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD 2017, policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan Strategic Policies 2017, policies D1,D4 and D8 of the LP and with chapter 12 of the Framework, which collectively seek to ensure that proposals are of high-quality design which relate positively to their locality. Conclusion 10. The development accords with the development plan for the area and there are no material considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. As this is a retrospective proposal it has not been necessary for me to impose any planning conditions.

263 Mount Pleasant Road, LONDON, N17 6HD — London Borough of Haringey — Steven Hartley INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2