Appeal 6000166

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application form only contained the appellant’s surname. I have therefore taken their forename for inclusion in the banner heading above, from the appeal form.

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 reason for refusal. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal.

In their response, the Council provided a copy of Policies HOU03 and CDH04 of the LP which relate to proposals for residential conversions and the re-development of larger homes and tall buildings respectively. As the appeal proposal relates to a domestic extension, these policies are not relevant to the proposal before me.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is located within a terrace of residential properties which do not have dormer windows to the front roof slopes.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance adopted October 2016 advises, among other things, that dormers on the front of semi-detached or terraced houses will not generally be acceptable, due to their unbalancing effect on adjoining houses and the general street scene. It goes on to state that dormer roof extensions should normally be subordinate features of the roof.

Although the proposed dormer would be set back and in from the roof edges, it would extend up to the ridge and across much of the front roof slope. It would be a large and dominant addition to the roof, appearing as an incongruous and unsympathetic addition which would unbalance the existing terrace.

[name] saw examples of dormer windows elsewhere in the locality, these were largely at the rear of the properties. The Council say that the small number of dormer windows to the front roof slopes on the street either do not appear to have planning permission or the permissions date back in 1983. Rather than providing justification for the development in question, their presence points to the need for such proposals to be carefully controlled if the character and appearance of the area is to be safeguarded.

The proposal would conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan and Policy CDH01 of the LP which seek a design-led approach to ensure that proposals respond sensitively to local character including roof form.

[name] appreciate the appellant’s need for additional accommodation, there is no evidence before me that this can only be achieved by the insertion of a dormer window to the front roof slope of the property.

The lack of harm to neighbouring occupiers is expected in order for a development to be acceptable. Rather than weighing in favour of the proposal, it is neutral in my

My attention has been drawn to two appeal decisions1. However, substantive evidence such as the relevant plans and the Inspector’s decision letter are not before me. Therefore, I am unable to draw any direct comparisons with the appeal proposal.

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.