Appeal 3319497

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for roof extension including a hip to gable and rear dormer window. Part single storey, part two storey side/rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/4160/RCU, dated 12 August 2022, and the plans submitted with it.

The description of development in the banner heading has been taken from the planning application form. The Council altered the description of the development. This is the description set out on the appeal form and a more accurate description of the appeal development and I have used it in my decision above.

The extensions to the property have been constructed, and therefore the appeal proposal is retrospective. For the avoidance of doubt the outbuilding shown on the drawings does not form part of the appeal scheme and is not part of my considerations here.

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

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached house on a street of similar properties. Dwellings are largely designed with hipped roofs with some variety in roof forms where hip to gable extensions have been added. The properties are evenly spaced and feature symmetrical projecting bays, which maintain a rhythm and continuity within the street scene. To the rear, many properties on [address] have dormer roof extensions and have been extended at ground level. The rear extensions are of varying design and influence the character and appearance of the area in particular at roof level where rear dormers are prominent features on properties when viewed from [address], which is at a lower land level.

The Council conclude that the rear single and first floor extensions largely accord with a previous planning permission. Further, the hip to gable addition to the roof is considered acceptable. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I see no reason to disagree. The focus of the Council’s concerns is the rear dormer extension and the overall effect of the development when taken cumulatively.

The dormer is set in slightly from the edge of the roof and finished in hanging tiles to match it, both the ground floor and first floor extensions are finished in red brick, consistent with the original house. The restrained palette of external materials unifies the development and reflects the materials in the area. IN this context the dormer window is not an incongruous or dominant feature.

The first floor extension is relatively modest in terms of its width and is set in significantly from the shared boundary with the attached property, it also has a hipped roof that limits its bulk. At ground floor level the extension mirrors the extension on the attached property and is stepped in from the boundary. The varied widths and depths of each element of the development act to break up the structure, adding visual interest. Taking into account all of the above, the cumulative impact of the development is not considered to have a harmful impact on the appeal property.

Further, the change in land levels restricts views of the ground floor of properties from [address]. Although upper floors and the roof lines are visible the development is not harmfully inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of development and is not incongruous or overly prominent within the street scene.

While the development does not accord with elements of the guidance within the Barnet: Residential Design Guidance SPD 2016, for the reasons detailed above, I am satisfied that the development does not result in harm.

I conclude that the appeal development does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It accords with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CS1 and CS5 of the [name]: Local Plan DPD (2012); Policy DM01 of the [name]: Local Plan DPD (2012). The policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to secure development that is sympathetic to the local character and the surrounding built environment.

The principal elevation of most of the dwellings on [address] face the rear boundary of the dwellings on [address]. The length of the rear garden of the appeal property is such that there is a significant separation distance between the development and [address]. As such I am satisfied that the development is not harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of [address].

The application is retrospective and therefore conditions relating to the approved plans and matching materials are not necessary.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal accords with the development plan and therefore should be allowed.