Appeal 6000365

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it related to the part single, part two storey rear extension with new patio area.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it related to the single storey front extension and planning permission is granted for the construction of a new single storey front extension at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/0423/HSE and 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 the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the single storey front extension: SL-003 [name] and SL-004 [name].

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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.

Since the Council made its decision the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (2025) (BLP) has been adopted. This replaces the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted 2012) and the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies (Adopted 2012). Having reviewed the updated policies, I find no material changes relevant to the main issues and have therefore assessed the appeal against the most up-to-date policies.

The description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description used in the Council’s decision notice, which reflects accurately and concisely the proposal before me.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area and the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with regards to outlook and light.

No. [site address] is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling prominently positioned on the corner of [address], which is highly visible from the public realm. The dwelling benefits from an existing two-storey side extension and is located within a predominantly residential area.

The street is characterised by dwellings which front onto the highway and are set back behind front gardens, many of which have been adapted for off-street parking. This, together with the pavement width, contributes to a spacious and open feel in the area. While the architectural styles are broadly similar, there is no prevailing uniformity in external materials, resulting in a varied palette and evidence of development over time.

The proposed development would involve the construction of a part single, part two storey rear extension which would be approximately 4.5m deep at ground level and 3.5m deep at first floor level. This conflicts with the London Borough of Barnet Residential Design Guidance 2016 (RDG), for the depth of both single and two storey rear extensions. The proposed rear extensions, by virtue of their depth and overall scale, would result in a form of development that appears unduly prominent and visually dominant.

As the semi-detached dwelling occupies a prominent corner plot and already includes a two-storey side extension, the proposed rear additions would appear disproportionate in scale when viewed from [address], resulting in a dominant form of development on a corner plot. Furthermore, the bulk and positioning of the extensions would appear unduly prominent, eroding the established openness of the surrounding area and detracting from its prevailing character.

The proposed front extension, by virtue of its scale, form, and design, would not result in material harm to the character or visual amenity of the surrounding area. It is noted that [address] features a number of front extensions and porches of comparable design and proportions, which collectively contribute to the established streetscene. In this context, the proposed development would be consistent with the prevailing pattern of development and would integrate harmoniously with the existing character and appearance of the locality.

In its reason for refusal, the Council has not raised concern to the single storey front extension. Therefore, consideration has been given to the potential for a split decision to be issued. For such a decision to be issued the relevant parts of the appeal scheme must clearly be physically and functionally independent. In this case, the proposed front development is clearly severable, and both physically and functionally independent, from the proposed rear extensions. There exists, therefore, the potential to issue a split decision in this case.

The proposed rear development would cause harm to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and surrounding street scene. Therefore, the proposal would be conflict with Policies HOU03 and CDH01 of the BLP, Policies D1 and D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP) and the guidance contained within the RDG. These policies and guidance, amongst other things, collectively seek to ensure new development is well-integrated with its surroundings and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character, distinctiveness, or visual amenity of the built environment by respecting the appearance, scale, mass and pattern of surroundings.

The proposed front extension would accord with Policies HOU03 and CDH01 of the BLP, Policies D1 and D3 of the LP and the guidance contained within the RDG which together seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character distinctiveness, or visual amenity of the built environment.

The adjacent dwelling, no [address], forms part of a semi-detached pair and is physically adjoined to the application property. From reviewing the plans and what I saw during my site visit it appears the rear garden of No. 80 currently enjoys an open and spacious feel, contributing positively to the living environment of its occupants. Both the appeal property and No. 80 feature modest single-storey outbuildings positioned at the far end of their gardens, which maintain a sense of openness and an uncluttered outlook.

The proposed rear development, by virtue of its cumulative height, depth, and width would create a noticeably prominent structure in terms of both scale and mass. Its close proximity to the rear garden of no [address] to a pronounced sense of enclosure, adversely affecting the outlook from the neighbouring garden. Therefore, the proposed rear development would appear unduly overbearing and oppressive, thereby diminishing the quality of living conditions for the occupants of no 80.

In conclusion, the proposed rear development would conflict with Policy HOU03 and CDH01 of the BLP which seeks to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties. The excessive scale and overbearing nature of the extension fail to uphold these principles, resulting in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of adjacent residents.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have recommended a condition specifying the relevant drawings, as this provide certainty. I have also recommended a condition regarding external materials which is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the host property.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the part single, part two storey rear extension with new patio area. I recommend the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey front extension.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the rear extensions, and the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the front extension.