Appeal 6000192

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised description of development was agreed in writing between the Council and the appellant (“Retention of raised pitched roof to side and rear of single storey rear extension to replace approved part pitched and part flat roof”). However, the Council’s Officer’s Report noted that the in-situ single-storey rear and side extensions at [site address] (No 4) do not conform to the design and scale of the relevant planning consent1. The Council determined the planning application on the understanding that it aims to regularise these extensions. I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

At the site visit I observed that the works undertaken to No 4 do not entirely reflect the submitted plans, in that windows were present on the lower ground floor, facing the patio / garden to [address] (No 6). As these windows are not shown on the submitted plans, they do not form part of my consideration of this appeal. As the 3rd reason for refusal, given in the Council’s decision notice, relates to these windows, I have not considered this matter further.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and 1 21/0390/HSE • the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6, with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure, daylight, and sunlight.

The appeal site comprises No 4, a 2-storey former end-of-terrace dwelling, situated in a residential area also predominantly consisting of terraced dwellings, albeit No 4 is adjoined to [address], a large building containing residential flats. The similarly-designed dwellings along the terrace to the west of No 4 benefit from historic 2-storey rear outriggers. [name] 4, the historic outrigger has been extended via a single-storey and a 2-storey rear extension along the common boundary with [address], and via a single-storey side extension along the boundary with No 6.

The Council have calculated that the as-built single-storey rear extension measures approximately 6 metres in depth, with a ridge height of approximately 3.30 metres at its point of interception with the original rear line of the dwelling, and that the in-situ infill single-storey side extension has a depth of approximately 10 metres and a ridge height of approximately 3.20 metres. These figures have not been disputed by the appellant.

As such, considering the historically modest size of No 4, the scale and bulk of the in-situ single-storey rear and side extensions is considerable. In particular, the in-situ infill single-storey side extension noticeably rises above the intervening fence on the boundary between No 4 and No 6. Due to their respective depths and heights, the extensions appear as prominent and disproportionately large additions to No 4. The development under appeal accordingly conflicts with paragraph 14.9 of the SPD2 which provides that, amongst other things, extensions should respect the original building and should not be overly-dominant.

Whilst other dwellings in the terrace have been extended to the rear, the in-situ single-storey rear and side extensions appear to be of a far greater scale and massing than the majority of nearby residential extensions. In combination, the extensions appear as incongruent and overly-dominant features in their context, which do not reflect the pattern of development in the area. As a consequence, harm to the character and appearance of the area has occurred.

I therefore find that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with part C. a) of Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (adopted 2025) (Local Plan) which provides that the Council will expect development proposals to respond sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context.

The development also conflicts with part D 1) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 2 Residential Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document (2016)

The in-situ infill single-storey side extension adjoins the common boundary with No

The Council have calculated that it rises approximately 0.9 metres above the intervening fence between No 4 and No 6. This figure has not been disputed by the appellant. I observed that it projects past the windows at No 6 which face the common boundary, which serve a kitchen / dining area. Due to its height and depth in close proximity to these windows, it significantly obscures the outlook from them. For the same reasons, it also creates an undue sense of enclosure for users of the kitchen / dining area, and for the users of the narrow corridor which exists between the side elevation of No 6 and the intervening fence.

Although the corridor referred to above was historically likely a somewhat darkened space, due to its depth, height, and close proximity to the corridor, the infill extension has unduly exacerbated this situation, by reducing the amount of available daylight to this space. Similarly, daylight has been restricted to the windows serving the kitchen / dining area, and to the rear facing glazed doors which serve the living room at No 6. Given the orientation of No 4, the development has also likely appreciably reduced the amount of sunlight received to these habitable rooms at No 6 during the mornings.

It follows that the development conflicts with paragraph 14.4 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, extensions to properties should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure they do not result in harmful loss of light or overshadowing of adjoining properties, loss of outlook from adjoining properties, or result in a sense of enclosure or overbearing impact on adjoining properties. All-in-all, the development has made the affected living spaces much less pleasant to use, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6.

I therefore find that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6, with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure, daylight, and sunlight. It conflicts with part C. f) of Policy CDH01 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, the Council will expect development proposals to provide a good standard of amenity and will allow for acceptable levels of daylight, sunlight, and outlook for adjoining occupants and nearby users impacted by the development.

As Policy D1 of the London Plan relates to area assessments and the preparation of development plans, it is not directly relevant to the main issues above. Nevertheless, the policies cited on each main issue above are sufficient for me to come to a view on the development.

The Council confirmed in 2016 that prior approval was not required for a single-storey rear extension with a proposed maximum depth of 6 metres3. Whilst the appellant has stated that works commenced, that prior approval scheme has now lapsed, due to paragraph A.4(13) of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO4 in force at the time of the Council’s notification, which provided that the 3 15/07689/PNH 4 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 development must be completed on or before 30th May 2019. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the development.

I note that the design incorporates a pitched roof, in part due to its ease of construction and lower cost. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. Such private financial and construction-related considerations only attract limited weight in favour of the development. The development has enlarged the available living accommodation at No 4, to the benefit of its occupiers. As this mainly constitutes a private benefit, it merits little weight in support of the development.

It follows that the collective benefits of the development do not outweigh the combined harm identified on the main issues above. Overall, the relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.