Appeal 6000367

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.

The description of development was amended prior to determination following correspondence between the local planning authority and the appellant. Thus, I have used the amended description of development above as per the decision notice, the appeal statement, and the relevant correspondence.

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

The appeal site comprises a single-storey detached dwelling which has an L-shaped footprint. The forward projecting portion of the dwelling is a former garage converted into habitable space which has a flat roof. The main element of the property currently has a pitched roof, the ridge height of which has previously been raised to create habitable accommodation within the loft space. It has also previously been extended to the rear with a single-storey extension and two flat roofed dormers.

The appeal site sits at the end of a cul-de-sac of six dwellings of a tight urban grain, comprised of both single and two-storey properties. Whilst there is a variety of building styles along [address], the single-storey nature of several of the dwellings when read in conjunction with the catslide roofs of the two-storey dwellings give the streetscape a spacious feel and overall low-level of built form. The topography of [address] means that the appeal site is situated in a somewhat elevated position and is prominently visible in views along [address] and from the junction with The Vale.

Policy CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (LP) requires extensions to be subordinate to the existing building in terms of size, scale, and/or height. Whilst the ridge height of the proposed pitched roof would be lower than that of the host dwelling, the difference in height would be minimal. This limited difference in height, combined with the depth of the proposed roof would mean that the proposal as a whole would ultimately fail to appear as subservient. It would thus not integrate well with the host dwelling and would be an unsympathetic and domineering addition.

The exterior of the host dwelling, which is white rendered with dark framed windows contrasts with the more traditional finishes of neighbouring properties and as such sits prominently within the street scene. Despite the proposed extension having the same palette of materials as the host property, the extension of these materials would compound the visually dominating effect of the proposed roofline and would render the appeal site as wholly discordant with the existing streetscape.

The proposal would improve the somewhat uncharacteristic flat roof design and would reflect the roof pitch of the main part of the host dwelling. The proposal would not extend the footprint of development and would sit below the roof lines of neighbouring properties. However, the stark, visual discordancy of the proposed extension would be exacerbated due to the orientation of the garage in relation to the bulk of the appeal site, causing the proposed roof extension to be overbearing and disruptive within the existing rhythm of development. This impact would be further compounded by the elevated location of the appeal property due to the topography of [address].

The appellant has cited examples of dwellings which have had planning approval, at [address] and [address]. [name] do not have the full details of these cases, these permissions relate to different sites and developments. The design approach taken there does not therefore justify the proposed development. The final cited example relates to a permission for new dwellings and as such is not comparable to the appeal scheme. Moreover, the cited examples were determined prior to the adoption of the 2025 LP and as such under a different policy context. In any event, I have considered this appeal on its own merits on the evidence before me and the site-specific circumstances.

Overall, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would fail to comply with Policies CHD01 and CDH05 of the LP which require development to respond sensitively to local character, design and building form and to be subordinate to the existing building in terms of scale, size, and height. It would also conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which seeks to ensure that developments respond to local distinctiveness and have due regard to street hierarchy, forms, and proportions. It would also be contrary to guidance contained within the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) which advises that extensions should be subordinate to the existing dwelling and not be overly dominant.

The proposal would provide additional living space for the appellant and their family and would be an efficient use of space. However, there is no substantive evidence that the proposal is the only way that these benefits could be achieved, and as such they do not outweigh my concerns regarding the main issue. Whilst the proposal would not harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, this is a requirement of planning policy and therefore not a matter that weighs in favour of 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.