Appeal 3335895

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for roof extension to the front section including 3no. front facing and 1no. rear facing roof lights and 3no. rear dormer windows, with alterations to the rear roof shape, new front fenestration and stone cladding, removal of the front balcony, new side entrance gate, alterations to the rear patio and replacement of the existing balustrading, reduction in the size of the swimming pool and replacement of the existing columns at lower ground floor level at [site address] , Whetstone, Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/3427/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan 002PA-A-01-001; Block plans 002PA-A-01-002; Proposed Ground Floor Plan Phase 2 002PA-A-03-104; Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan Ph2 002PA-A-03-106; Proposed First Floor Plan Ph2 002PA-A-03-105; Proposed Section A-A' Ph2 002PA-A-05- 103; Proposed Section B-B' Ph2 002PA-A-05-104; [name] 2 002PA-A-06-108; [name] 2 002PA-A-06- 105; [name] 2 002PA-A-06-107 and [name] 2 002PA-A-06-106.

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.

The name of the appellant in the banner heading above differs from that on the planning application form. However, it has been confirmed that the agents’ details were incorrectly included on the planning application form. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appeal is being pursued by the original intended applicant and have proceeded on this basis. The description of development is as stated on the Council’s decision notice, rather than that given on the application form, as this is more precise. The appellant raises no specific objection to that description, which they have subsequently used on the appeal form.

The appeal property is substantially complete. While the overall proportions appear to accord with those shown on the plans, given that several amendments are proposed to the detailed design I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans for clarity.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property, bearing in mind that it would be within the Totteridge Conservation Area (TCA).

The Pastures is a residential street, characterised by large, detached dwellings with a varied design and appearance and mix of materials. Several properties have dormer windows at the front and rear and as such there is no coherent roofscape. The appeal site accommodates a contemporary detached dwelling.

Located within the TCA, the appeal site falls within character area 3. From my observations and the [name] (2008) ([name]), the significance of the conservation area, insofar as relevant to this case, is primarily derived from the generously sized properties with front boundary treatments. While the [name] identifies the residential development within The Pastures as a negative feature of the conservation area, the appeal property with its contemporary design has visual interest. Therefore, the appeal site makes a neutral contribution to the TCA.

The proposed dormer windows have been designed to align with the windows below and the tall glazed outward face would reflect the style and proportion of windows on the existing house. They would be set down from the ridge and have sloping roofs to reduce their horizontal emphasis to ensure that the dormers would not have a boxy appearance. The proposal therefore complies with the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guidance Supplement Planning Document (2016) (SPD).

The dormers would be larger than half the depth of the roof, and there would be no set up from the rear elevation. However, in this instance, owing to the contemporary and distinctive design of the appeal property, the dormers would not appear unduly dominant within the roof space or against the rear elevation of the appeal property as a whole.

While from the rear the appeal property would appear as a two-storey property, the front elevation’s single storey appearance would remain. There would be glimpses of the dormer windows in oblique views from the street, nevertheless the proposal would not detract from the prevailing character and appearance of the area, and the positive characteristics of the TCA as whole, outlined above, would not be undermined by the addition of the dormers.

I note that the Council has no concerns regarding the effect of the design of the other elements of the scheme on the significance of the TCA. Bearing in mind the nature and extent of the other proposed development, I concur with that view.

Overall, the proposal would relate positively to the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property, having a neutral effect on, therefore preserving, the TCA as a whole and its significance. As such, it accords with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM01 and DM06 of Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies (2012). These policies require, amongst other things, development to have the highest standards of urban design that respects local context and distinctive local character, protecting and enhancing heritage assets, including conservation areas.

In addition, the proposal would align with the guidance set out in the SPD in relation to dormer roof extensions. On the decision notice the Council have also referred to the [name] and [name] (2016), however this primarily relates to space standards and performance standards of buildings including energy and water conservation. My attention has not been drawn to any wording in it that is relevant to this main issue. It has not therefore been determinative in my decision.

The proposal would also meet the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework to conserve and enhance the historic environment and achieve well-designed and beautiful places.

In addition to the standard condition that limits the commencement of the planning permission it is necessary to impose a condition identifying the approved plans for clarity. A condition relating to materials is also necessary, in the interest of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that I should take a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.