Appeal 6000239

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area and host property, and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling that has a small, single storey side extension with a flat roof. The appeal building is one of four dwellings that have been recently constructed which have a uniform and symmetrical appearance. The wider area is residential with houses being predominantly large, occupying spacious plots with generous setbacks from the road that results in an open and spacious character and appearance.

The Council’s Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 states that first floor side extensions should be set back from the front main wall of the existing house by 1m and from the side boundary by 1m. The guidance further states that pitched roofs, following the same pitch as the existing roof, will normally be needed for two storey extensions.

The proposed development would be set back from the main wall of the dwelling by less than 1m and the flat roof proposed would not match the pitched roof design of the property, thereby conflicting the guidance contained within the Residential Design Guidance SPD.

The existing dwelling has a small, single storey side extension with a flat roof. However, due to its low height, it is generally not visible from the wider area, and it does not therefore upset the rhythm and symmetry of the group of properties. The proposal, through its height would be more prominent and result in a large and bulky extension that would stand out through the unsympathetic flat roof that would upset the rhythm and symmetry of the group of properties and erode the spacious character and appearance of the area.

I note that the appellant is proposing to use alternative materials than those shown on the original plans, however, I am not satisfied that this would mitigate the harm I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and host property. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 [name] 2025 (LP) and guidance contained within the Residential Design Guidance SPD. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that positively developments respond to local distinctiveness, respond sensitively building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context and complement the character of the existing building.

The proposed development would be located on the boundary with the neighbouring property, No [address]. No 17 is a semi-detached dwelling that occupies a large, corner plot with rear garden that extends towards the appeal site.

The corner position of No 17 means that the dwelling is angled away from the appeal site with predominant views from No 17 being towards the rear garden which would remain unchanged. The large garden size would also mean that despite the closeness to the boundary, the proposal would not appear overbearing or obtrusive for the occupiers of this property.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 17 with regard to outlook. I find no conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the LP and guidance contained within the Residential Design Guidance SPD. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments deliver appropriate outlook and provide a good standard of amenity for nearby users impacted by developments.

The appeal site is not located within a conservation area, nor is it a listed building, is within [name] 1 and is not subject to any relevant planning designations. However, these are neutral matters.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.