Appeal 6000294

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of No 1a [name] with particular regard to overbearing.

No [site address] is a detached double storey residential dwelling which forms part of a cul-de-sac of mixed semi-detached and detached residential dwellings. It has a patio area immediately to the rear of the property and the garden area, approached by steps from the patio, is significantly lower. There is a gap in the built form between Nos 1 and 1a with a boundary treatment at approximately the same height as the floor level of the patio area.

The adjacent property, No 1a, shares a similar setback from the road as the appeal site; however, No 1a follows the curve of the road and is therefore built at an angle to No 1 and does not follow the straight building line of the rest of the properties on this side of [name]. To the rear of No 1a there are rear facing windows to habitable rooms and there is a modest patio area, the same width as the building, before steps down to a much lower, small, and enclosed triangular shaped rear garden. The boundary height beside the patio is at approximately waist height but increases in height in the lower garden area. The land at [name] slopes down significantly from the westerly end of the cul-de-sac to the easterly entrance of the cul-de-sac, meaning that No 1a, is noticeably lower than the appeal site.

The proposal would construct a part single and part two storey side and rear extension wrapping around the side and rear elevations. Whilst this would be setback somewhat from the boundary with No [address] and a considerable height above the boundary.

The proposed first floor side and rear extension would project rearward by a notable distance, beyond the rear elevation of No 1a. [name] acknowledge this has been reduced in depth, steps back from the ground floor rear projection and would be pulled in further from the boundary compared to the previous refused scheme, it would nonetheless be significantly tall, adding mass and scale in proximity to the boundary. The consequence would be a significant increase in mass and scale directly adjacent to No 1a at a height above the boundary and depth to the rear which would result in a dominant and overbearing development with an increased sense of enclosure to the outdoor amenity area.

No 1a is located at an angle to the appeal site and consequently the outlook from the rear habitable rooms would not be adversely affected. However, that does not mitigate the distinct sense of overbearing and enclosure that would affect the rear amenity area of No 1a as a result of the proposed development so close to and of such a height above the shared boundary.

I acknowledge that an extant permission for a similar scheme exists under planning reference 25/0177/HSE and that there is a real prospect that this permission would be implemented should the current appeal fail. The main difference between that approved scheme and the current proposal is the depth of the first floor rear projection. The proximity, height, and projection past No 1a of the current proposal would lead to a significant overbearing development as set out above. [name] attribute the fallback position moderate weight, it would be considerably less harmful than the current proposal and it does not justify the significant harm of the proposed overbearing development.

I conclude that development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 1a with particular regard to its external area.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the Barnet Local Plan (2025) Policies CDH01 and CDH05 and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) insofar as they seek good standards of amenity for adjoining and nearby users impacted by development. Similarly, the proposal would conflict with the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document, where it seeks to ensure development does not reduce the amenity value of neighbouring occupiers.

I acknowledge that other properties in the area have undergone extensions over the years. However, I have not been provided any substantive detail to determine under what development plan and against which policies they were assessed, or if they have planning permission at all. Regardless, each development must be assessed on its own merits. As such I attribute those other extensions little weight.

I acknowledge that the development would increase the size of a family property and that the family wish to ensure the house is suitable for generations to come. These are, however, primarily personal circumstances that seldom outweigh land use planning matters.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.