Appeal 6000307

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property benefits from extant planning permission (ref 23/0958/FUL) for a loft conversion with a rear dormer set in from the edges of the roof and limited to the rear roof slope.

Although there is reference in the delegated report to the amenity of neighbours, the Council has not identified any harm to living conditions and therefore my decision concentrates on the matters in dispute.

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

Park Hall Road is a residential street made up of terraces of highly similar dwellings of a similar age. The rear elevations of properties here are not visible from street level but are visible to occupants of properties along [address] in private views. To the rear, pairs of outriggers project into small gardens, creating a distinctive rhythm.

Properties along Park Hall Avenue have been subject to alterations over time, including full width dormer windows. These are typically limited to the rear roof slope and rarely extend onto the roofs of the rear outriggers. These alterations, together with the rhythm of projecting pairs of outriggers, define the character of Park Hall Avenue.

The appeal property with its projecting rear outrigger is reflective of the above character. Its adjoining neighbour No 26 and No 30 nearby, both have full width rear dormers. Nonetheless, at odds with the prevailing character described above, the dormers at No 26 extend over the roof of the outrigger.

The appeal proposal would mirror the existing roof extension at the adjoining property No 26, comprising of an L shaped dormer window which would extend beyond the rear roof slope onto the roof of the outrigger. This projection onto the rear outrigger would result in a structure of considerable scale. Owing to its considerable mass, scale and position on the roof, it would appear as a ‘top heavy’ and substantial addition to the roofscape here, at odds with the prevailing character. Moreover, it would erode the definition between the rear outriggers and the main roofs of the terrace, disrupting the rhythm of the pairs of outriggers that characterises the area here. Whilst not visible from street level, this harm would be highly evident in views from neighbouring properties.

The appellant has indicated that the materials would match those used on the existing and neighbouring properties, and that this could be controlled through a condition. Nevertheless, this would go little way to offset the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Whilst the proposal would recreate a feature that is present at the adjoining property, this is not reflective of the prevailing character and is understood to have been installed through permitted development. [name] to allow the appeal proposal it would compound the harm that already arises from the dormers at No 26.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (2025), as well as Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), which collectively seek to ensure that development responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, including scale, massing and roof form.

There would also be conflict with the guidance contained within the Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) insofar as it requires dormer windows to be subordinate to the host property.

I acknowledge that there would be benefits to the appellant through the addition of a bedroom to the appeal property. However, that benefit would also arise from the extant permission. Whilst the proposal would also add a study over the outrigger, these are private benefits that would not outweigh the public harm to the character and appearance of the area I have identified above.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.