Appeal 6000358

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part single, part two storey side and rear extension with associated alterations to roof and alterations to the existing patio area at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/0721/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers P0 [name] and Block Plan, P1 [name], P2 [name], P3 [name], P4 [name], P5 [name], P6 [name], P7 [name], and P8 [name].

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.

I have taken the crux of the description of development from the decision notice dated 21.02.2025 which the appellant agreed to through communication with the Council. However, in the interests of accuracy, I have removed elements of which are not in themselves development.

I have obtained the Residential Design Guidance (2016) document from the Council’s website. I do not consider that in doing so procedural unfairness would arise.

There is not contest regarding the acceptability of the ground floor side and rear element of the proposed development. I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor side and rear extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene.

[address] is varied in terms of its appearance, with an array of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings of varying architectural styles. The appeal dwelling forms one half of a pair of a semi-detached dwelling. In terms of their design, they differ from the varied design within the wider street scene of this part of the northern side of [address]. Whilst the appeal dwelling appears not to have undergone alteration or extension, the adjoining property has a two-storey side extension.

The proposed development would introduce a proportionate two-storey side extension to the host dwelling. The cumulation of the proposed development’s width, being noticeably less than the host dwelling and its set back from the front gable elevation would ensure that the relationship between the two retains the existing hierarchy on site, with host dwelling appearing to be the primary mass and the proposal being subordinate.

Whilst the proposed development would result in a somewhat substantial enlargement of the overall massing of the host dwelling, it would respect the pattern of surrounding development and street scene. As aforementioned, there is an array of massing and design of dwellings within the immediate context of the appeal site, which would mean that the proposed increase in mass of the host dwelling would not serve to disrupt an established pattern of development, nor appear incongruous.

Instead, the proposed development would result in the general visual balancing of the mass and bulk of the appeal dwelling with its attached neighbour, echoing the existing side extension of the neighbouring dwelling. This effect would contribute positively, in appearance terms, to both the appeal dwelling within the context of the pair and the wider streetscape.

Though the Residential Design Guidance (2016) (RDG) may state that side extensions should not exceed half the width of the original dwelling house and that the roofs of side extensions should be set down by 0.5 metres, the document represents guidance as opposed to policy. With this in mind, though the proposed development may not accord with the guidance as set out within the RDG in that it is not set down from the main roof ridge, for the reasons stated above its overall massing in relation to the appeal dwelling would still appear subordinate.

For these reasons, I find no harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or street scene, and therefore no conflict with Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP) or Policy D3 of the London Plan. These policies, among other things, aim to ensure new development responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context.

The Council raised no concerns in relation to the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No. 2). This conclusion was based on the caveat that the two first floor side elevation windows would be conditioned as obscure glazed to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy.

[name] see no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions, I do not consider it necessary to impose a condition obscuring these windows given that they are shown to be obscured on the plans before me. A condition is already imposed that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and any changes to these plans is not what has been applied for nor granted planning permission.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity and simplicity. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I recommend a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty.

Permitted Development (PD) rights may allow the addition of windows on the side elevational walls without express planning permission. However, the outlook from those implemented at ground floor would be screened by the existing boundary fence or garage and those at first floor would be subject to conditions requiring that they are obscure glazed and fixed shut below 1.7 metres. Therefore, there would be no loss of privacy to adjacent occupants. Furthermore, any other changes outside the remit of PD would require planning permission and therefore the Council would be able to assess its impact.

A balcony, roof garden or element to that effect have not been applied for and have not been before me to consider. In any event, these would require full planning permission and be reviewed by Council. I find that these conditions would not be required to secure acceptable living conditions of adjacent occupants.

Given that materials are labelled on the plans which are in themselves conditioned to be accorded with, a matching materials condition is not necessary to ensure an acceptable impact to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene.

Accordingly, I recommend that these conditions are not imposed as they would not meet the tests for conditions set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

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