Appeal 3287310

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have also dealt with another appeal (Ref: APP/N5090/D/21/3287310) on this site. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council have confirmed that the replacement of the rooflight with a larger rooflight is considered to be compliant with permitted development rights and that they consider the larger rooflight to be acceptable. Therefore, the focus of this appeal will be on the other alterations to the roof.

The main issue is the effect of the alterations to the roof on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal site forms part of a semi-detached pair. Although there are differences between the properties, such as colour, rooflights and the existing extension on the appeal site, there are also features that bring the pair together, including the roof form. The surrounding area has a range of roof forms, however there is only one other property that features a similar roof alteration to that proposed.

The proposal would alter the roof by introducing an angled roof slope at a corner where the front projection and set back part of the dwelling meet. The introduction of this angled roof slope, despite the fact it would be a similar appearance in terms of materials and regardless of whether it is considered a large front extension, would appear at odds with the existing roof form. It would therefore harm the character of the host dwelling. It would also be visible when passing the property and, although hidden from views in one direction, would harm the street scene.

There are differences between the appeal property and the semi-detached neighbour, such as the existing two-storey side extension. However, the extension maintains a similar roof form to the rest of the building and is therefore less detrimental to the appearance of the pair than the proposal. Furthermore, the existing rooflights do not interrupt the roof scape to the same extent as the proposed angled roof form would. Therefore, the proposed alterations to the roof would disrupt the remaining symmetry seen between the semi-detached pair.

The variation of roof forms in the surrounding area and differences between other semi-detached pairs would not minimise the harm that would arise to this semi-detached pair. Whilst there is a similar roof alteration on the property at [address], angled roof alterations like this and the one proposed do not form the predominant character of the area. Even if the proposed roof alteration would have less impact than that seen at No.46, it would still appear out of character with the host dwelling, semi-detached neighbour, and surrounding roof forms.

Overall, the proposed alterations to the roof would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore not accord with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Core Strategy1 which together look to ensure development respects local context. It would also not comply with Policy DM01 of the DMP2 which seeks to ensure that development respects the appearance of surrounding buildings and streets. Likewise, it would not conform with Policy D3 of the London Plan (adopted 2021), which requires development proposals to respond to local distinctiveness through their scale, appearance, and shape.

It would also go against the aims of the SPD3, which suggests that extensions should reflect the design of the original building, whilst having regard to the character of the area.

The existing accessibility issues and safety concerns with regards to headroom have been taken into consideration. There are, however, likely to be other ways in which these issues could be solved that would not be as detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. These benefits are thus given limited weight and do not outweigh the harm. 1 Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (adopted 2012) 2 Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (adopted 2012) 3 Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (adopted 2016)

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the Development Plan as a whole, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have also dealt with another appeal (Ref: APP/N5090/D/21/3287309) on this site. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached property that has an existing rear dormer. The attached neighbour also has a rear dormer, which extends most of the width of the roof slope but is well set up from the eaves line. There is a similar semi-detached pair neighbouring the appeal site, both of which feature large rear dormers; these are set below the ridge height of the properties. Next to the appeal site is a public accessway which allows views of the rear of the property.

The proposal would increase the size of the existing dormer, so that it extends to meet the roof of the two-storey side projection. The ridge height of the side projection sits slightly lower than the ridge height of the part of the dwelling where the existing dormer is located. The proposed extension to the existing dormer would sit slightly above the ridge of the side projection. It would therefore fail to appear subordinate to the property and would harm the appearance of the host dwelling and semi-detached neighbour. This would be visible from the public accessway to the side of the appeal site and would thus harm the appearance of the surrounding area.

Dormers in the vicinity of the appeal site predominantly appear subordinate to the main dwellings. The rear dormer on the semi-detached neighbour, [address], achieves this through its significant set up from the eaves. The rear dormer at [address], although large, is set below the ridge of the main dwelling. Furthermore, No.44 has a similar two-storey side projection as the appeal dwelling, and the height of the dormer drops below the ridge where it connects to the side projection. The large rear dormer at [address] is also set below the ridge of the main dwelling and reflects the fenestration of the main dwelling to ensure subordination. These examples are thus not comparable to the appeal proposal.

Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy1, which requires that development respect local context. It would also not comply with Policy DM01 of the DMP2, which looks to ensure development preserves local character and respects the appearance of surrounding streets. The proposal would also go against the aims of the SPD3, which outlines how dormers should not rise above the ridge and should be subordinate features on the roof.

The proposal would slightly increase the usable loft space however this would only be by a small amount. This benefit would be limited and would thus not outweigh the harm from the proposal to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the Development Plan as a whole, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.