Appeal 3337731

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Erection of a rear outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 23/4018/HSE dated 15 September 2023 and the drawings submitted with it subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the unnumbered approved plans prepared by SIXTHART Ltd which accompanied the application ref: 23/4018/HSE with the reference of ‘PP’.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and residential amenity of adjoining users.

[site address] is a two-storey terraced dwelling built in the latter decades of the twentieth century which sits within a residential area of similar housing, but, with its immediate neighbours, on sloping ground which elevates each rear amenity area significantly above the ground/entrance level of the house to which it is tied.

The proposed outbuilding would sit within an area adjacent to the rear of the dwelling enclosed on its east and south sides by the boundary wall/surmounted fence with No.[address] (No.9) and the steep upward slope to the raised rear garden area on its south side. In addition, on its north and west sides there would be, respectively, the rear elevation of the house and a small brick outbuilding containing a WC and storage each with an intervening space for circulation, ventilation and daylight. At present these areas are partly roofed with translucent sheeting.

The proposed building would be flat-roofed and to a height which is slightly above the existing structures that I have described. Although the construction of an outbuilding in close proximity to windows of habitable rooms would presume detriment to amenity for occupiers, in this case the intention is plainly to provide additional habitable accommodation making, because of the already enclosed position to be occupied by the proposed structure, good use of overhead glazing to give (or retain) access to daylight which is available from the southerly aspect.

What is apparent from my site visit is that the drawings do not accurately show the height of existing separating structure between No.9 and No.10 and this may explain the conclusion reached by the Council in their second refusal reason. That boundary comprises a low wall attached to the party wall between the two houses (as drawn) but, unlike what is drawn, actually surmounted by a high solid fence which extends to something close to first floor level. This fence appears to have been in place for some time and would be replaced by the solid structure of the proposed outbuilding.

On that basis there would be no more than a slight increase in height at the boundary and some localised additional height where the rooflights are positioned, inset from the boundary. This would not result in a significant change in the degree of enclosure along the shared boundary, nor, given the topography, any loss of outlook for occupiers of No.9 arising. For these same reasons there would not be, in any practical sense, a material loss of outdoor amenity space to No.10.

The Council suggest the proposal would be a disproportionate and incongruous addition. Being at the rear, the building would not be visible from the public realm or, to any significant degree, from adjoining houses except from the windows of bedrooms above. For the reasons set out as to topography and existing enclosing structures, the positioning of the proposed building in an already-enclosed yard area would not impinge upon the perceived pattern of development. The alternative of a conventional extension such as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) would have a similar impact but be unfeasible due to the significantly higher level of the garden to which it would lead. Overall the proposal represents an innovative way to provide additional, albeit separate, habitable accommodation in a constrained location with minimum impact.

Overall, having regard to the circumstances explained, I find little conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) ([name]); Policy DM01 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies (2012) (BDMP) or the Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) which together seek that development should respect local context and protect local character and amenity. 10.Consequently, for the reasons given and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and timing condition.