Appeal 3280701

The planning application was accompanied by drawing PAD.301.284. A set of more detailed drawings have been submitted with the appeal that more clearly illustrate the proposal. As these drawings do not include any material changes to the proposal, I have taken them into account in the assessment of the proposal.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a rear glass veranda at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/1313/HSE, dated 9 March 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PAD.301.284; LEI-301; LEI-302; LEI- 303; LEI-304; LEI-305.

No above ground works shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and (ii) whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers of the appeal property, with particular regard to the provision of outdoor amenity space.

The appeal property is a small, recently constructed, part-two, part-single storey house with a private garden to the side and rear. It is located to the rear of the properties facing [address] and, together with 2 other small houses, is accessed via a lane and parking area.

The proposal would comprise the erection of a glazed single-storey addition that would be parallel to, and approximately the same size as, the rear wing of the house. This largely transparent addition would complement the modern aesthetic of the host property and would be a relatively discrete addition as it would only be visible from the upper-level windows in the neighbouring houses. Whilst there would be a reduction in garden space, ample visual separation between neighbouring houses would be maintained.

For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. It therefore accords with Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) (2012) (CS), Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) (2012) (DMP), and guidance contained in the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). These policies and guidance seek to ensure that, amongst other matters, new development is well designed, respects the appearance, scale, and mass of surrounding buildings, and responds to the existing character of an area.

The appeal property has one bedroom and study on the upper floor. As the latter room could form a small bedroom the property is of sufficient size to accommodate 3 people. The garden is relatively large for such a small dwelling and with the proposed addition in place it would still provide ample space for a small family. In addition, the proposed glazed addition would include bi-folding doors and therefore function as semi-outdoor space in summer.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers of the appeal property. It therefore accords with [name] CS1 and CS5, DMP Policy DM01 and the aims of the SPD. Amongst other matters the policies seek to ensure that occupiers of new development enjoy a high standard of amenity.

The intended material to be used for the structural frame of the glazed extension is not described on the drawings but is referred to in the Grounds of Appeal as galvanised steel. It is not clear whether this would match the window frames of the house. A condition requiring proposed materials to match existing materials is not therefore appropriate nor is it necessary in this instance. However, I do consider it necessary to ensure that the detailed design is appropriate and of high quality. A planning condition requiring the submission and approval of details is therefore imposed in addition to the standard time limit.

Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring the approved development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings, where applicable, is imposed.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.