Appeal 6000070

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part two storey and three storey side extension facilitating domestic lift to all storeys at [site address] , [name], Barnet [postcode] , in accordance with application Ref 24/3483/HSE and subject to the conditions attached to this Decision.

During the appeal the appellant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (‘FRA’) and an [name] (‘EA’). As these are submitted to address part of the Council’s reasons for refusal, I have accepted these in determining this appeal.

On the most recent information before me, the Council is reviewing and updating the Borough's planning policies as part of a draft Local Plan. I understand that this is close to adoption. As such, this is a relevant material consideration in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area; ii) whether the proposal would increase flood risk; and iii) the effect of the proposal on protected species (bats) and adjoining trees.

[site address] (‘No.15a’) is a relatively recently constructed two storey detached dwelling located mid-way along the northern side of this road. To the west of this dwelling is [name] which runs approximately 7m from the property. To the west of the brook is a detached bungalow. To the east is an extended two storey semi-detached dwelling. Appeal Decision: 6000070

The dwellings along [address], between its junctions with Park Road to the east [address] to the west, comprise of detached, semi-detached and bungalows, which contribute to a varied street scene of individually designed dwellings along here.

The proposed side extension would be about half the width of the existing dwelling and would retain a similar ridge height. As such, this would be a proportionate addition to the existing dwelling. Its principal elevation would include a projecting gable in matching materials to No.15a. Because of this and its similar form to the existing gable, this would add some symmetry to the design of No.15a. Also, the new gable would be narrower, with a lower ridge height and slightly recessed relative to the existing gable. This, along with the sloping roof of the new gable, would give the proposed extension a degree of subordination.

The proposed extension introduces a narrower, side facing gable along the west elevation of the appeal property. This would be set back from the front elevation and reflects the original ridge height of No.15a. Furthermore, in wider views, this side elevation would be softened by the existing trees to the west.

Overall, because of its proportionate scale and considered design, the proposal would assimilate with No 15a. Furthermore, the increase in scale would be absorbed by the retained spacing and established trees to the west. As such, No 15a, as extended, would not be unduly dominant within the street scene and would complement the varied street scene along this part of [address].

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and does not conflict with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2012) (‘CS’) and Policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2012) (‘LP’), and Policies CDH01, CDH02 and CDH05 of the draft Local Plan (Regulation 19) (2021) as amended. Together, these policies require proposals to be of high quality that preserve or enhance local character.

Based on the submitted FRA, the appeal site lies predominantly in [name] 1, with only its western boundary adjacent to [name] 2, as identified by the Environment Agency flood mapping. The development will not encroach outside Zone 1 or beyond the existing site boundary into [name] 2.

The FRA demonstrates that the proposed development, subject to the integration of a sustainable urban drainage system, flood-resilient construction details, and alignment with flood mitigation standards, would be safeguarded from flood risk and not result in flooding elsewhere. Furthermore, the proposed measures would mitigate any potential flood risks associated with its proximity to [name].

As such, and subject to securing the above measures through a planning condition, the proposed development would not result in any increased risk of flooding. As such, the proposal is consistent with the aims of Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS13 of the CS. Policy DM04 of the LP and Policy ECC02A of the draft Local Plan (Regulation 19) (2021) as amended. Together, these policies seek to ensure that proposals mitigate against flood risk, from all sources, on and off-site. Appeal Decision: 6000070 The effect of the proposal on protected species and trees.

In accordance with the EA, all built structures present across the appeal site, were assessed as having negligible value to support roosting bats due to a lack of suitable roosting features identified. No evidence of bats was discovered both internally and externally across the structures and therefore no further surveys have been recommended. The nearby scattered trees both on and off-site are small to medium in size and did not show any suitable roosting features for bats. As such, the overall suitability of the development site and nearby area for foraging and commuting bats is low.

Nevertheless, some precautionary working methods, as well as ecological enhancements, have been recommended so that the likelihood of encountering any protected species (e.g., nesting birds) is reduced.

The proposal would bring the footprint of the dwelling closer to boundary trees situated along the [name]. However, the area for the proposed extension is already hard surfaced and occupied by a built form. Also, on the information before me, the proposed extension would utilise existing piled foundations. As such, the proposal is unlikely to affect the root systems of adjoining trees.

The canopies of the adjoining trees would be close to the flank elevation of the proposed extension. Even so, no windows are proposed along the upper levels of this elevation, which would limit any post-development pressure from the existing trees. Therefore, and subject to appropriate pruning of adjoining trees which would largely be a matter of routine maintenance for the owners of the adjoining land, I am unpersuaded that the proposal would result in any unacceptable risk of post-development pressure on adjoining trees, sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not adversely impact on [name] (bats) or adjacent trees. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS7 of the CS, Policy DM16 of the LP and Policy ECC06 of the draft Local Plan (Regulation 19) (2021) as amended. When taken together, these policies, amongst other things require that development proposals should ensure that, wherever possible, existing trees of value are retained. Seek the retention and enhancement, or the creation of biodiversity.

Policy G6 of the London Plan, specifically relates to Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). As the proposal does not affect any SINC, I also find no conflict with this Policy.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans and documents in the interests of certainty.

To ensure that the development positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area, I have specified a condition requiring details of all external materials. Appeal Decision: 6000070

To ensure that the development is safeguarded from flood risk and does not result in flooding elsewhere, I have specified a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a scheme for Drainage and [name], as set out in the approved Flood Risk Assessment,

Also, a condition requiring that the proposal is undertaken in accordance with the [name] and Recommended enhancements, as set out in the approved EA, is reasonable and necessary to safeguard and enhance biodiversity.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan: drawing no.01; Existing plans and elevations - drawing no. 02; Existing and proposed site and roof plan: drawing no. 20A; Existing and proposed front elevations: drawing no. 28B Proposed plans / rear elevation: drawing no. 26C; Proposed elevation and section: drawing no. 27B; Flood Risk Assessment by Pentangle Design Group; and [name] by Coyne Environmental, December 2024.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials that match in colour; texture and design with those of the existing building.

No above ground works (excluding demolition) shall be undertaken until a scheme for the Drainage and [name], as set out in the approved Flood Risk Assessment (including a timetable for implementation) has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with approved scheme for Drainage and [name] and timetable.

The development hereby permitted, shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] and Recommended enhancements, as set out in the approved [name] by Coyne Environmental, December 2024.