Appeal 3274744

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear infill extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/0978/HSE, dated 22 February 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 44143-06-01 and 44143-01-02.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Planning permission was recently granted1 for a single storey rear extension that would cover the width of the dwelling and project around 3.5 metres. A second application2 was then approved that would add a further narrower addition. The proposal seeks to infill the approved staggered rear building line with a conservatory style further addition. The approved schemes have not been implemented. It is therefore necessary to consider the proposed extension in its entirety with the approved schemes forming material considerations of significant weight.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 1 Planning Application Reference: 20/3849/HSE 2 Planning Application Reference: 20/5490/HSE

[address] is a residential street of largely semi-detached properties. These are two-storey in character, with narrow side passages. Many of these dwellings have been extended with single storey rear extensions. The host dwelling accords with the character of housing in the surrounding area and therefore makes a positive contribution to its character and appearance.

The proposal would project from the rear elevation of the original dwelling by around six metres. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance requires rear extensions, of semi-detached properties, to project no more than 3.5 metres. However, it continues that rear extensions should not represent a bulky or prominent addition to the dwelling. Although the proposal would breach the numerical requirements of the guidance, the proposal would be only marginally larger in footprint than the approved scheme. The proposal would include a limited further infill addition, with a conservatory style extension of reduced height, in comparison to the approved additions. This would therefore result in a development of limited scale and prominence.

Furthermore, the height and massing of the proposal would be in keeping and subordinate to the host dwelling. Rear extensions are a characteristic of the area and a similar size of extension exists to the rear of the adjacent property. Therefore, whilst the proposed rear extension would project beyond some local rear extensions, it would be in keeping with other development seen locally. In any event, the extent of rear projection proposed has already been established by the extant approval. Furthermore, being located to the rear, the proposal would have no impact on the wider streetscene.

Accordingly, the proposal would satisfy policies CS1 and CS5 of the Barnet Local Plan - [name] (2012), policy DM01 of the Barnet Local Plan - Development Management Policies (2012) and the Council’s Residential Design Guidance (2016). These policies, among other matters, seek development to respect local context and for proposals to understand local characteristics.

The proposed extension would be closer to parts of the shared boundary with [address] than the extant scheme. The neighbouring dwelling has a single storey rear extension. The shared boundary, adjacent to the proposal, currently consists of a boundary wall and trellis, providing some screening. The proposal would potentially affect the afternoon/evening sunlight to neighbouring rear facing habitable rooms. However, due to the limited scale of the proposal and existing boundary screening, the effect on the occupiers of No 21 in terms of sunlight, daylight and outlook would be negligible.

I have applied the standard conditions advised within the National Planning Practice Guidance. I have also imposed a condition for materials to match the existing building in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.