Appeal 6000326

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.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

Where an application is made for prior approval for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

There is nothing to suggest that the proposed development would fail to meet the criteria at GPDO paragraphs A1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (k). Given that the development would measure 7.35 metres in depth and would not exceed 4 metres at its highest point, the proposal would exceed the limits in GPDO paragraph A.1. (f), but not those outlined in paragraph A.1 (g). Accordingly, in these circumstances, where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required regarding the scheme’s impact on the amenity of adjoining premises.

[name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises. This assessment must take into account any representations received, but in accordance with paragraph A.4(9) be not limited solely to an assessment of the relationship with those properties from where representations have been received.

In this instance, a representation by a neighbouring occupant has been submitted. The Council asserts that the proposed development would affect the amenity of the occupants of [address].

Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including the occupants of [address] with particular regard to light and outlook.

The development pattern of [address] and [address] results in the side boundary of the appeal dwelling forms the rear boundary of a number of dwellings on [address] including numbers 6 to 24. Consequently, the rear elevations of these properties face directly onto this boundary. However, the proposed development would only project in front of the rear boundaries 18 and [address] (No. 18, No. 20). Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a materially harmful effect on the amenity of the occupants of Nos 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 22 and [address].

Notwithstanding the structure to the rear of No 20’s garden and the vegetation to the rear of No. 18’s, the existing conditions and alignment of these dwellings means that they enjoy a comparatively open outlook from the ground floor rear elevation windows in both the main dwellings and their outriggers.

The proposed development would project across the entirety of the rear boundary of No. 20. Just over half of the proposed extension’s coverage behind the boundary would be approximately 4 metres in height before it begins to taper down in height. Despite the increased setback from the boundary in contrast to the previously dismissed appeal scheme from May 2025 (Appeal Ref: 6000125), this would nevertheless result in as substantial extension rising significantly above the existing rear boundary of No. 20, introducing a sizable mass. Given the modest depth of No. 20’s garden and the close proximity of the dwelling to the boundary, the scale of the extension would result in an overbearing impact and a sense of visual enclosure, particularly affecting the ground floor rear window of the outrigger, the ground floor windows of the main rear elevation, and the enjoyment of the garden. This would harm the level of amenity that could reasonably be expected, and currently exists, at this neighbouring property.

Notwithstanding the impact on outlook, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in a harmful loss of light to No. 20. The submitted light assessment demonstrates that while there would be some loss of direct sunlight, this would be limited in extent to the rear end of the garden and would be noticeable only during the winter months. Direct light levels enjoyed by the occupants of No. 20 would not be unacceptably affected.

Whilst the proposed development would project beyond the rear fence of No. 18, this would be by a marginal amount and would also incorporate the lower section of the pitched roof. Although the development would be visible, I am satisfied that it would not have a harmful effect on the amenity of the occupants of No. 18.

Turning to the properties on [address], No.[address] (No. 45) is a single storey dwelling sited behind the frontage developments of [address] and [address]. Due to its siting, it is located toward the rear end of the appeal dwelling’s garden, and therefore the proposed development would be sited a substantial distance away from No. 45’s dwelling and garden. Accordingly, I conclude that no harmful impacts to amenity would be experienced by its occupants due to the proposed development.

No. [address] (No. 43) is sited in line with the main frontage development of [address], and therefore the appeal dwelling. However, the access lane of No. 45 means that the boundary of No. 43 is set away from that of the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, No. 43 has a two-storey rear extension that projects beyond the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling. I consider that these existing conditions would mean the proposed development would not have any adverse effects to the amenity of its occupants.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed development would result in an adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers of No. [address], having regard to outlook. While there may be no requirement to have regard to the local development plan, its policies are still capable of being a material consideration. Insofar as they are relevant, the proposed development would not accord with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021–2036 (adopted 2025), which, among other things, aim to ensure that development maintains acceptable levels of outlook for adjoining occupants and nearby users affected by the proposal.

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.