Appeal 3294435

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling located within a residential road comprising mainly of detached and semi-detached dwellings. Although there are some exceptions, I observed that hipped roofs are the predominant roof form and are a defining characteristic of the area.

Planning permission1 (the previous planning permission) was granted in January 2020 for extensions and alterations to the appeal property, including a roof extension, with rear dormer window and 2no side and 3no front rooflights. Works to implement this planning permission have commenced and were evident at the time of my site visit.

The current appeal proposal is for a hip to gable conversion which would improve the floor to ceiling height within the converted loft. Two small windows are also proposed in the new side gable to provide light to an ensuite bathroom and staircase.

[address] rises fairly steeply towards [address]. Therefore, the appeal property is on higher ground than [address]. The hipped roof structure of the host dwelling is already prominent in the street scene and the proposed hip to gable extension would add further to the bulk and mass of the dwelling. Whilst the changes in levels would ensure that there would be a 1 LPA ref. 19/6287/HSE visual distinction between Nos 53 and 55, in my view the proposed gable would be highly dominant and would tower above No 53 which has a hipped roof. It would not be in keeping with the existing hipped roof form of the host dwelling and would appear as a visually obtrusive and incongruous addition. Furthermore, the proposal would be highly prominent in the street scene and would be significantly at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of hip to gable extensions in [address], including at Nos 31 and 54, and in neighbouring streets. However, these examples are not widespread and, in my view, such alterations have detracted from the character and appearance of the street where hipped roof forms predominate. I also acknowledge that hip to gable extensions can in some circumstances fall under permitted development as confirmed by the examples of Lawful Development Certificates referred to by the appellant. [name] accept this to be the case, the prevalent character of [address] is of dwellings with hipped roof forms and it is against this existing character that I have assessed the proposal.

I also note the various examples of side dormer extensions including several which are close to the appeal property. Whilst these side dormers are visible in the street scene, in most cases the hipped form of the main roof remains evident and accordingly, this type of extension has generally had less impact on the street scene than the hip to gable extensions.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document 2012, Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document 2012 and the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016). These policies and guidance seek to ensure that, amongst other matters, new development is of a high quality design that respects the appearance, scale, height and mass of surrounding buildings and respects local context and distinctive local character.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.