Appeal 6000109

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellants against the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

I have used the description set out in the appellants’ appeal statement1 as it more succinctly and accurately describes the appeal proposal than the one provided on the planning application form and the Council’s decision notice.

The Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (LP) on 4 March 2025. This replaces the previous Local Plan referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal and I have taken those comments into account.

I have been provided with copies of Policies CDH01, CDH05 and HOU04 of the LP which are relevant to the appeal. The Council have also provided a copy of Policies GSS01 and CDH04 of the LP which relate to proposals for new homes and tall buildings. As the appeal proposal relates to a domestic extension, these policies are not relevant to the proposal before me.

The appeal property benefits from a flat roof dormer extension to the roof and a flat roof single storey ground floor extension. Both extensions are to the rear and 1 Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Appeal Statement dated 24 January 2025 extend the full width of the property. There is an extant planning permission2 (‘the EPP’) for an extension at first floor level which would extend across approximately two thirds of the rear of the property and would have a crown roof.

This appeal relates to a first floor flat roof extension which has already been built. The appeal proposals seek to retain the extension but with a reduction to the height of the parapet around the roof of the extension.

Therefore, the main issues in this appeal are the effect of the first floor extension with the proposed alteration to the parapet on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; • The living conditions of the neighbouring occupier at [address] with respect to outlook; and • If harm is found, whether material considerations, including any fallback position and the occupiers’ personal circumstances, justifies a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal property is located in a predominantly residential area consisting of largely detached and semi-detached dwellings located in good size plots. Although the design, size and materials of construction vary along [address], brick and rendered elevations under hipped roofs, as seen on the host dwelling, are the prevailing character.

The first floor extension extends across the whole of the rear elevation of the property. Even with a reduction in height of 450mm to the parapet, the extension would be a bulky and dominant addition to the property. Whilst the red brick construction matches the main house and the use of brick generally in the area, the flat roof is at odds with the original character of the building.

Located to the rear of the property, the first floor, flat roof extension is not visible from the street. It is nonetheless visible from the neighbouring properties. Paragraph 14.26 of the SPD3 states that flat roofs on two storey rear extensions are not normally acceptable because they do not relate sympathetically to the house. In this instance, the height, bulk, design and siting of the extension even taking account of the reduction to the parapet, would result in an incongruous form of development and would add to the proliferation of flat roofs to the rear of the property. The appeal proposal would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of the area.

I have been referred to other developments at numbers 215 and [address] and I note that the Inspector refers to these in the previous appeal4. I have also been advised that flat roof extensions are commonplace in the area. However, substantive evidence such as plans and drawings are not before 2 [name]: 22/0298/[name] floor rear extension with crown roof. New side window to south and north elevations. Roof light to existing side north roof slope. Skylights over existing flat roof dormer roof. 3 Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 4 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/C/23/3314767 and 3314768 me and therefore, I am unable to draw any direct comparisons with the appeal proposal.

The proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 (TLP) which requires that development is of an appropriate form which positively responds to a site’s context and local distinctiveness. The proposal would also be contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the LP which promote high quality design which responds to local character, complements the character of and is subordinate to the existing building in terms of its size, scale and height and incorporates a roof profile which is sympathetic to the existing property.

The first floor extension is close to the boundary with the neighbouring property, [address]. The SPD says that two storey extensions which would within 2m of a neighbouring property and project more than 3m will not normally be acceptable. This does not in my view mean that all extensions which project 3m or less, as in the case of the appeal proposal, would be acceptable. Each case must be decided on its own merits taking into account the specifics of the relationship between the two properties.

The proximity of the extension to the boundary with No. 219 and its extent of projection means that even with the proposed alteration, it would have an imposing presence, from inside the neighbouring property and from its rear patio area. This would result in a harmful sense of enclosure and a loss of outlook for the occupiers of No. 219. This would be at odds with Paragraphs 14.23 and 14.24 of the SPD which seeks to ensure that two storey rear extensions do not lead to a loss of outlook or have an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the neighbouring property.

Prior to the works being carried out, there was a tree between the appeal site and No. 219. However, the impact of the tree on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property would be materially different to the impact of built development, not least because of a tree’s organic form. Given the scale, height and proximity of the proposal to the boundary, additional planting would not effectively screen the development or negate the harm. A condition requiring the appellants to pay for or provide a tree on the neighbours’ land, on land outside their control, would not be enforceable.

The proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 of TLP which seeks to deliver appropriate outlook and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the LP which requires that an acceptable outlook is maintained for adjoining occupiers.

The EPP represents a viable fallback position. However, in that case, the first floor extension would be set well back from the boundary with No. 219 and would not have the same enclosing impact as the proposal before me. In addition, it would be smaller and have a crown roof. It would therefore appear subservient to the host dwelling and preserve the character and appearance of the area. Given that the fallback position would be less harmful than the proposal before me, it carries very limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

Whilst the flat roof area provides a location for solar panels, there is no substantive evidence before me that this would be the only appropriate location for solar panels on the property. This carries very limited weight in favour of the proposal.

The lack of harm in respect of overlooking, daylight and sunlight to the neighbouring property and amenity space provision is what is expected of all development in order to be acceptable and are therefore neutral in my assessment.

My attention has been drawn to Policy HOU04 of the LP which relates to specialist housing. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the policy seeks to provide vulnerable residents with a housing choice by supporting proposals for people to live independently in locations which are accessible by public transport. The first floor extension includes an en-suite bedroom for a family member who requires adaptations. However, Policy HOU04 of the LP goes on to say that proposals should also demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area. Given my findings on the main issues above, the proposal would not comply with Policy HOU04 of the LP in this respect.

Both appellants plan to marry in the near future at which point, their wives would also move into the property. The appeal proposal would result in four en-suite bedrooms and one bedroom with access to a separate bathroom. This would provide sufficient accommodation for the 8 adults comprising the appellants’ family.

One of the en-suite bedrooms is currently occupied by [name], the appellants’ elderly grandmother. She has medical conditions which result in mobility issues requiring a wheelchair. She requires assistance with showering, taking medication and dressing. The family also assist [name] with domestic tasks, using the stairs and transport to medical appointments. She requires a bedroom and bathroom of sufficient size to manoeuvre a wheelchair and adaptations to the bathroom to enable her to use the toilet and shower. Living with family members and having appropriate adapted facilities are therefore fundamental to sustaining [name] at home.

I saw on my site visit that the bedroom is at first floor level and had sufficient space for a wheelchair to manoeuvre and the provision of a commode. In the en-suite I saw that the toilet had a frame over it and there was a walk-in shower with a seat. The Occupational Therapist has confirmed that the current bedroom and en-suite meets the needs of [name].

However, many of the adaptations I saw were freestanding items of equipment. There was nothing to suggest that these adaptations could not be provided in other en-suite bedrooms in the house.

The Council have suggested to the appellants that a ground floor bedroom and bathroom could be provided within the property. This would remove the need for [name] to negotiate the stairs. In addition, the Council have provided the appellants with drawings indicating how the first floor of the property could be reconfigured to provide an en-suite bedroom within the EPP.

Although a Council Building Inspector has not visited the property to assess their feasibility, both suggestions are cogent, resulting in the required number of bedrooms for the family’s needs. Whilst these options may require fundamental structural alterations to the property which could come at a substantial cost, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that this would be the case.

I appreciate that the appellants have made a significant investment in this development and that they and their family have accommodation needs. However, I am mindful of the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. The development brings about a permanent alteration to the building, whereas it is likely that the family’s needs will change over the longer term.

For these reasons, I therefore find that the personal circumstances of the appellants and their extended family are not sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan arising from the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

Given that there is already a degree of mutual overlooking of rear gardens, the first floor extension would not result in additional overlooking to an unacceptable extent and a condition could prevent the use of the flat roof for anything other than maintenance purposes. The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Report5 demonstrates that the proposed development sufficiently safeguards the daylight and sunlight to the neighbouring property and its garden.

The appeal scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and thereby conflict with the development plan. I have considered whether conditions could be used to overcome the harm and have set out above why, in this instance, they would not.

Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellants’ and their family’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and to a private and family life and home, under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, those are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well-established and legitimate aim: the protection of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Accordingly, it is proportionate and necessary to refuse to grant planning permission. There will be no violation of the appellants’ or their family’s human rights. The protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering with their rights.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. These characteristics include age, disability and race. I acknowledge that members of the appellants’ family share one or more of these protected characteristics for the purposes of the PSED.

In considering the requirements of the PSED, a refusal of permission would not amount to unlawful discrimination. Allowing the appeal when the proposal would result in the harm I have identified, would undermine relations between people who do and do not share a protected characteristic. This supports my view that the need 5 Dated 17 November 2022 by Right of [name] for the appeal proposal does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.