Appeal 6000164

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and host property.

The appeal building is a two-storey mid terraced property and forms part of a block of six other dwellings. The land is gently sloping and ridge heights generally follow this sloping land level. This results in rhythm within the street scene.

The proposed raising of the ridge height would be small in height, but it would match the adjoining dwellings and create an unusually long block of terraced houses at the same height. This would appear awkward within the street scene and upset the rhythm that is character of the area.

The rear dormer would be substantial in size, taking up almost the entirety of the roof space. The terrace is free from rear dormers, which combined with the overall size would create a dominant and bulky feature. While the dormer would be located to the rear, the increase in ridge height would allow some views from the front and more prominent views from the rear.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document September 2012, Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012, Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016. Amongst other things, these seek the highest standards of urban design in order to generate development proposals of landmark quality and respects local context and distinctive local character.

I note that the proposed development would provide some private benefits through the increase in space for the occupiers, as well as use matching materials. I also note that the Council have found that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, these are neutral matters.

The appellant has referred to a number of developments within the wider area in an attempt to justify the proposed development. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to No [address], while this included the raising of the ridge height, which is similar to the appeal proposal, it did not include a sizable rear dormer which would result in a dominant and bulky feature.

No 10 County gate is an end of terraced dwelling that is much wider than the appeal property with other dwellings on the road having a larger width. The development is therefore better able to be incorporated due to the larger property size and has only affected the stepped ridge line on one side.

In regard to the number of other properties referenced on County Gate1, dwellings appear larger and are set back from the road with spacious frontages. As a result, the developments referenced have a reduced effect on the street scene when compared to the appeal proposal before me.

In regard to No [address], the stepped roof height is not as characteristic of this road and as such the development has not resulted in a detrimental effect on the street scene.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.