Appeal 6000344

The appeal is dismissed.

The address used in the heading above is taken from the submitted appeal form. It references both 111 and [address] (No.111 and No.113) and accurately describes the site. The address provided in the application form only references No.111.

The description of development used above is taken from the Council’s decision notice. The appellant has provided their agreement to this amended description.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host properties and the area.

The appeal site relates to a pair of detached properties located on the southern side of [address], at the junction with Princes Park Avenue. No.111 has a dual frontage to both streets and is therefore prominent in the street scene. The surrounding area is characterised by mainly detached properties which have symmetry in their placement with a relatively consistent building line and setback with front gardens.

Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (BLP) seeks to ensure high quality design that responds to local character. Policy CDH05 of the BLP outlines how the Council will support extensions that complement the character of the existing building and are subordinate to the existing building in terms of size, scale and/or height. These policies are supported by the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (RDG) which offers guidance on specific elements of designing new schemes and alterations, such as local character, pattern of development, building line and setbacks, scale, massing and height.

[name].111, a two-storey side extension would replace an existing side projection with small balcony. As existing, the side projection benefits from a staggered building line, and the small balcony ensures subservience to the main dwelling. The proposed extension would extend further forwards and to the side, straddling the existing outbuilding with an increased bulk and massing.

The increased bulk and massing would be exacerbated by the proposed changes to the roof, which would widen and lengthen the flat component of the roof. This would elongate the appearance of the roof, resulting in an overly dominant roof form, which would be out of keeping with surrounding development. Additionally, this would be further exacerbated by the multiple dormers proposed. [name] acknowledge the presence of other dormers in the surrounding area, and the proposed dormers may be acceptable when considered in isolation, when considered alongside the proposed side extension and roof works, the proposal would result in an overly dominant form of development that would fail to ensure subservience to the existing property.

The proposed front extension (facing [address]) would include a gable feature. It would bring the building line along [address] marginally forward, however any impact of this would be negligible. The Council raises concerns over the dominance of the proposed gable feature, however it would sit below the main ridge height of the dwelling and reflect other similar features in the surrounding area. I consider this element of the proposed works, when considered in isolation, to be acceptable.

Nonetheless, overall, the cumulative effects of the proposed works at No.111 would result in an overly dominant form of development. The additional bulk and massing would dominate the existing dwelling, harming the character and appearance of it and the surrounding area.

[name] acknowledge that effort has been made to reduce the extent of development from a previously dismissed application (Planning Ref: l 22/1942/HSE), including reducing the height and pitch of the road, the proposed extensions would still be considerable and would fail to ensure subordinance to the existing dwelling. My attention is also drawn to a previously approved scheme (Ref: 18/7032/HSE) at No.111. Based on the information before me, it appears that this was approved prior to the adoption of the BLP, and the permission has subsequently lapsed. Nonetheless, whilst this planning approval results in a larger extension that increases the bulk and mass of the dwelling considerably; it would be less than is proposed under this current application and appeal. The scheme also seeks to address concerns raised in an earlier refused scheme (F/04575/13). Nonetheless, as set out above I am not satisfied that the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.

Turning to the proposed extensions to No.113, the existing property already benefits from a considerable ground floor rear extension. It also benefits from a lawful development certificate (LDC) for a hip to gable roof extension and rear dormer (Ref: 22/1159/192), however these works do not appear to have taken place yet.

The proposed first floor rear extension and roof dormer, when considered alongside the existing ground floor extension, would subsume and dominate the rear elevation of the existing property. Whilst the depth of the first-floor extension may only slightly exceed the guidance set out in the RDG and may be smaller than one sought under a previously refused scheme in 2013 (Ref: F/04560/13), when considered as a whole, the proposed works would be unduly dominant. Although the works would be minimally visible from [address] and Princes Park Avenue, a lack of visibility does not equate to a lack of harm.

Overall, cumulatively the proposed extensions to No.113 would fail to ensure subservience to the existing property and would dominate the rear elevation of the property. They would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area.

I am mindful of the rear dormer approved under the aforementioned LDC, which is put forward as a fall-back position by the appellant. However, the evidence before me demonstrates this this dormer was of a reduced depth, and the scheme did not include a first-floor rear extension. In combination, these factors would result in the fall-back scheme being less dominant, in comparison to the appeal scheme. Accordingly, it attracts limited weight as a consideration in favour of the appeal.

Whilst some elements of the proposal would assist in improving the appearance of the dwellings, such as the bow windows, these improvements would be offset by the dominant form of the proposed extensions. As such, I disagree that the proposal, when taken as a whole, would enhance the appearance of the buildings.

The appellant contends that both plots are capable of accommodating a larger property, outlining how the garden at No.111 would remain the same size. However, the proposed works are considered in the context of the original buildings and the surrounding area. [name] recognise that various parts of the scheme, such as brickwork detailing and the use of bay windows, would be reflective of the existing character of the properties, elements such as roof form, proportion and subservience are some of the considerations mentioned in the RDG as essential for making a development congruent with its surroundings. This is not the case in this proposed development.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other developments in the area, which they consider to be a precedent. Regarding the dormer at [address], there is limited information regarding this before me. I do not know the circumstances under which this was constructed or its status with regard to planning permission and therefore cannot draw any direct comparison with the proposal that would weigh in its favour. Additionally, the scheme before me does not solely seek planning permission for dormers, and the cumulative impact of the proposed extensions must be considered collectively.

The appellant outlines how many properties along [address] and in the area have used permitted development rights for loft conversions, dormers and single storey extensions, however no further details or addresses have been provided. I therefore afford reference to this limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant contends that the Council has not provided any evidence to substantiate its position. However, considering a proposals effect on the character and appearance of an existing property and surrounding area is ultimately a subjective subject. The Council has clearly set out its reasoning in its case officer report and appeal statement.

Given the nature of my concerns, I do not consider that a planning condition to ensure the use of external materials to match the existing houses could overcome the harm identified. For the same reason, conditions to ensure obscure glazing, fixed shut openings, and that the extensions to each property are implemented concurrently would also not overcome the harm identified.

To conclude, for the above reasons, cumulatively the proposed extensions would lack subservience to the existing dwellings and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host properties and the area. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy CDH01 and CDH05 of the BLP, which are supported by the RDG.

The Council has also referenced the schemes noncompliance with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 in its case officer report, however this policy is not listed in its refusal reason. Given this would not be determinative, I have not considered the schemes compliance with this policy further.

The scheme would not result in harm to neighbouring amenity, and neither works to either property would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the other property. The site is not situated in a conservation area or subject to any heritage designations. There are no protected trees on site, and the site is within flood zone

No objections were received to the initial application. Nonetheless, these are considered neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

The appellant puts forward that the proposed development would create much needed improved living space for two households. However, I have not been given demonstrable evidence to indicate that the appeal scheme is the only or least harmful way of satisfying a need for improved space. The benefits of the proposed development to the households are weighed against other material considerations, including relevant local and national planning policies. I therefore consider that the harm that would be caused by the proposed development clearly outweighs the needs of or benefits to the appellants, and it is proportionate in the circumstances to dismiss the appeal.

Whilst the proposed development may modernise the properties, this does not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.