Appeal 3349424

The appeal is dismissed.

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

No. [site address] (No.53) is a two-storey detached dwelling with shallow pitched hipped roof with characteristic splayed eaves. The dwelling is located at the junction of [address] and [address]. This corner plot location results in the dwelling occupying a prominent position within the surrounding street scene. The dwellings on [address], along with [address], are all similar in design and appearance, which includes uniformity in their roof form. The relationship between No.53 and No.[address] (No.51) creates a visually balanced entrance into [address]. These similarly designed dwellings on [address] and [address] form the visual context of the appeal site.

The appeal proposals include various extensions and alterations to the property. The Council have raised no concern with regard to the side and rear extensions or alterations to fenestration. Given the scale and siting of the extensions, and the relationship of the alterations with the street, I have no reason to disagree with their findings in this respect. The Council’s sole concern relates to the alterations to the roof.

The increase in height of the roof would not be significant in isolation. However, the roof alteration includes an increase in the pitch of the roof, which results in an increase in the width of the ridgeline to the front and rear elevations. These Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/24/3349424 alterations would result in a significant increase in mass and give a greater horizontal emphasis to the roof of the property. As such the dwelling would visually appear top heavy with a bulkier appearance. This significant change in roof form would result in the loss of important character and architectural style of the dwelling. This would be further exacerbated by the apparent loss of the characteristic splay to the roof pitch over the eaves.

The steeply pitched roof and bulkier form would result in a dwelling that would markedly contrast with the uniformed roofs of the adjacent dwellings. To this end the dwelling would appear more prominent within the street and visually at odds within the surrounding context. Furthermore, the scale and mass of the roof would disrupt the visual balance and harmony with No.51 and dilute the sense of arrival into [address].

I acknowledge that the application relates to an amendment of previously refused scheme1. I also note that the Council have confirmed that the specific reasons for refusal of that scheme, which was also dismissed at appeal2, have been addressed. However, while that scheme included an increase in roof height, it is evident from those refused plans3 that the roof pitch and resultant scale and mass of the roof was not significantly altered. Therefore, the roof form and character of the dwelling did not appear to result in a harmful change, nor did it result in a roof which would significantly contrast with the surrounding roofscape. Therefore, I find the roof forms between both schemes to be materially different and, in any event, I have considered this appeal on its individual merits.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. Therefore, the development conflicts with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2012); Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (2012); and, D3 of The London Plan (2021). Together, amongst other things, these seek to deliver sustainable development that is of high-quality design which respects the local context. The development also fails to adhere to the guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: The Residential Design Guide (2016) which requires extensions to be consistent with the form, scale and architectural style of the original building.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.