Appeal 3320757

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a “[name] and [name]”, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 23/0499/HSE, dated 6 February 2023), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of

The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

The appeal site is located in an established and extensive residential area at [name] in the London Borough of Barnet, between Edgware, [address] and Colindale. The area has been designated as the Watling Estate Conservation Area. It was laid out, essentially, between the two World Wars and residential development predominates, together with a park, schools and other facilities, including significant retail frontages in [address] and [address]. The housing was developed by the London County Council, reflecting Garden City and [name] principles, and, in many ways, the Conservation Area may be said to epitomise 1930s suburban ideals.

Within the vicinity of the appeal site, the houses are laid out in terraces (sometimes quite short), with modest back gardens. The houses are set behind small front gardens and the road layout includes some landscaped open Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/23/3320757 spaces. The houses are designed in a traditional “Arts & Crafts” style with thoughtful details that establish a local character. Trees and shrubs soften the townscape. Nevertheless, the roads are rather narrow by modern standards and the street pattern accommodates parked cars only with some difficulty.

[address] is a narrow roadway that links [address] and the much busier [address] (the A5109). There is a small area of open space at the midpoint of [address] that is partly used for formal or informal car parking but which provides a pleasant open space. Short terraces of houses face the roadway.

The existing house at [site address] is a rather small house at the end of a short terrace, standing forward of its neighbour at number 17. The house is rendered externally, with a hipped roof and a dropped eaves on the front elevation. The back garden has been reduced by the construction of an outbuilding adjacent to the rear boundary and by a rear extension that was under construction at the time of the site visit for the appeal. The remaining garden area is now quite small in practice.

At the time of the site visit, a rear extension and a side extension were both under construction, implementing a recent planning permission that had been granted for the scheme. Now, however, it is proposed to add to the approved scheme, by linking the side and rear extensions to form a “wrap around” extension on the ground floor that would unite the whole and add to the living accommodation.

Provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 impose obligations on those considering whether to grant planning permission for development that would affect a conservation area. In such cases, decision makers are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas affected by development proposals.

Those formal requirements are reinforced by the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’, especially at Section 16, which emphasises the importance of conserving and enhancing the historic environment, though it also points out the desirability of putting a heritage asset to its “optimum viable use” as does the ‘Planning Practice Guidance’.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ also emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation.

An emphasis on the importance of good design is also to be found in the Development Plan, for example at Policy D3 of ‘The London Plan’, which emphasises a “design-led approach” and draws attention to the need to protect and enhance heritage assets (including conservation areas).

Similarly, Policy CS5 of ‘Barnet’s Local Plan ([name])’, dated September 2012, is focussed on achieving “high quality places”, while Policy DM01 of 2 Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/23/3320757 ‘Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies)’, also dated September 2012, provides more specific criteria, aimed at achieving high quality design. Again, attention is drawn to the importance of heritage assets.

Attention has also been drawn to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents, entitled ‘Residential Design Guidance’ (dated October 2016) which also addresses relevant design criteria and considerations, although it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. The ‘[name]

is also material to the appeal and is useful and informative.

The proposed single-storey side extension would be visible from [address], especially in views from the east along the narrow road. The visual impact would be very limited, nevertheless, especially by comparison with the scheme that is under construction. Indeed, the combined “wrap around” single-storey extension to the side and rear of the house would have only a very limited impact on the streetscene. Nor would it have a materially harmful effect on the outlook from nearby properties (or on other residential amenities).

It is true that the footprint of the existing house would be increased and that this would be proportionately significant (bearing in mind that no first floor extension is proposed as part of the project). Even so, I am convinced that the mathematical increase in floor area would not have a significant impact on the appearance of the two-storey house and that the proposed extension scheme would not be unduly prominent or bulky in the townscape. In any case, the extension would be in harmony with the original design and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would make a very useful addition to the accommodation at [site address] . The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to the provision of residential accommodation in the locality, even though it would be limited, weighs in favour of the appeal. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the Development Plan, in principle, and I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted, subject to conditions.

[name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.

I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I have concluded that standard conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing no. EW19-03-1001 (marked “Revision 1st”) ([name]); drawing no. EW19-03-1002 (marked “Revision 1st”) ([name]); drawing no. EW19-03-1003 (marked “Revision 1st”) ([name]); drawing no. EW19-03-1004 (marked “Revision 1st”) ([name]).

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. 4