Appeal 6000020

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan. Although not referred to in its decision, copies of its policies are before me and they attract some weight as the review is at an advanced stage.

On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issues of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary for me to give the main parties opportunity to comment on this matter.

Two versions of a proposed plan were submitted with the appeal. The Council has confirmed that the appeal should be determined in accordance with drawing no. PL03/Rev 1.

An application for costs was made by [name] of Sasen against The Council of the London Borough of Barnet. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area, and the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.

The existing dwelling stands in a residential area of mixed character. It marks a point where several residential developments meet. Blocks of three and four storey flats curve around the road to the east that have strong flat fronted and squared forms. These contrast with the more conventional forms of the two and three storey dwellings that are close to the site to the northwest and southwest.

The existing dwelling is difficult to view from the public domain as it is low lying and surrounded by tall fences. The site looks as though it is an area of garden associated with an adjacent dwelling. With this in mind and owing to its low profile and odd position the existing dwelling could easily be mistaken for an outbuilding. The area around the appeal site has an open character and has the appearance of a loosely defined open square, onto which all the surrounding 2- 4 storey buildings face. This sense of openness is enhanced by the substantial number of mature trees that grow to the front of the buildings.

This arrangement would be significantly altered by the proposal, as the additional storey would make the existing dwelling highly prominent to view. It would occupy an odd position that would be unrelated to the alignment of any of the adjacent dwellings and would appear out of place in this central open area.

Additionally, it would have an unconventional and overly complex form. Part of the extension would have a mono pitched roof, with an inconsistent eaves height where it wraps around to face the road. To the front the extension would utilise vertical walls to sit over the existing walls, with a flat roof. This would result in a bulky and inelegant building, with a complex and incoherent form that would be at odds and appear out of place in the context of the straightforward forms of the surrounding buildings.

The extended dwelling would remain lower than the height of the adjacent dwellings. However, this alone is a characteristic that would not be sufficient to address its poor design and awkward position.

In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP), Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 (CS), Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies 2012 (DMP), and emerging Policies GSS01 and CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2024 (BLP). Together these Policies seek to secure good standards of design that respects local context and distinctive local character.

The existing dwelling stands against a boundary that separates it from the garden of no. [address]. The proposal would result in a broad metal roof facing towards this neighbour, with a relatively shallow depth of intervening garden between the buildings. Outlook from the garden and rear of the dwelling would be dominated by the proposed roof extension, and this impact would be significant enough for the living conditions of the occupiers of this dwelling to be adversely affected.

The dwellings to the southwest are further away from the appeal site. The extended dwelling would face these dwellings side on, with a less expansive area of metal roof that would be separated by the existing garages. Accordingly, I do not consider the impact on the occupiers of these adjacent dwellings to be harmful.

Direct overlooking from the proposed first floor would only be possible through the elevations that face out over [address]. Furthermore, the proposal’s impact on daylight and sunlight would be acceptable, on the basis of the slope of the proposed roof and its low eaves at the rear. However, these matters do not lessen the adverse impact the proposal would have on outlook.

In summary, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of no. [address]. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the LP, Policy CS5 of the CS, Policy DM01 of the DMP and emerging Policy CDH01 of the BLP. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals deliver appropriate and adequate outlook.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.