Appeal 6000375

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.

I have taken the description of development from the application form. The Council used an amended description on its decision notice and delegated report which includes works to the roof. The Council has previously issued a certificate of lawful development (Council reference 25/0092/192) for roof extensions, and I have been provided with the plans, which show the same roof extensions as on the appeal plans.

I saw on site that construction has commenced on a first-floor side extension and single-storey rear extension. Roof extensions have also been constructed which do not accord with the plans attached to the lawful development certificate and the appeal. The Council advises that the roof extensions are not lawful, however this is not a matter before me. My remit in this appeal is to assess what the appellant has applied for, which does not include roof extensions. Nevertheless, it is relevant to my consideration of the appeal proposals that the appellants clearly plan to extend the roof.

For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, I have considered the appeal based on the submitted ‘existing’ and ‘proposed’ drawings before me. The status of the ‘as built’ development is a matter for the Council to consider separately.

Since the Council issued its decision, a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension have also been constructed at No 145 adjacent to the appeal site.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, [address], having particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site is a two-storey, semi-detached property. It has a high level of characterful detailing, including mock-Tudor framing, a gabled front projection with overhang and a square bay window to the first floor. Above the off-centre entrance, it has an oriel window, and all of the windows have small leaded lights. It also has a pedimented porch with columns.

[address] is a circular road, featuring houses of a similar design on either side. Many of the houses in the area have undergone various extensions and alterations and as such these are established features within the vicinity. There is no singular architectural design, however the design of the host dwelling is repeated throughout [address] and forms a positive element of the area’s character and appearance. Owing to its position on one of the road’s significant bends, the plot of the appeal site is wedge-shaped, so the attached garage sits at a splayed angle, and the rear of the appeal dwelling is closer to its neighbour, No 145, than the front of that dwelling.

The Council indicates that the proposed single-storey rear extension with mono-pitched roof and the proposed replacement garage would be acceptable elements of the proposed development. I have no reason to disagree with this assessment as they would have a limited visual effect and are features commonly found in this area. Therefore, those elements of the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed two-storey side extension would be subservient in height, set down from the ridge height of the main roofline, and set back from the principal elevation. It further proposes the use of complementary mock-Tudor detailing to the front. Therefore, in isolation, this element of the proposal would be consistent with other extensions in the street scene.

However, the interaction of the different roof forms of the proposed side extension, the proposed first-floor rear extension and the planned dormer would be poor, resulting in an awkward, bulky appearance. Although the proposed first-floor extension would only extend across part of the rear elevation, due to its width and size it would cut across the dormer, forming a disjointed and incoherent roofline. Consequently, the cumulative effect of these elements would result in an inharmonious rear elevation and would, therefore, fail to achieve the high quality of design that is required by local and national policy.

The side extension of No 145 reduces the gap between the two properties, however the roof extensions would still be visible from the road due to the hipped roof of No 145. Furthermore, the depth of the proposed two-storey side and rear elements would be noticeable from the public realm, particularly as the rear corners of those two properties would be significantly closer together than at present. Therefore, the combined additional bulk of the proposed side, rear and planned roof extensions would be apparent, and to a greater degree than in other examples referred to by the appellant where dwellings are set parallel to one another. This combination of planned and proposed rear extensions would also be highly visible in private views from surrounding rear gardens and dwellings. Consequently, overall the proposal would result in a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several other schemes within the vicinity. They have provided plans for a permitted scheme at No 145. The development now built at No 145 is however of different design, as it does not include a hip-to-gable roof extension or rear dormer. I have no details of how the Council came to its decision to grant permission for either the scheme the appellant has provided, or the one now built, but it is notable that neither includes a first-floor rear extension. Both are therefore different in massing and design to the appeal scheme and do not have the same visual impact.

The first-floor rear element permitted at No 26 is of markedly smaller scale than that proposed in this appeal, thereby resulting in a different appearance and effect. Furthermore, there is no officer report before me for to evidence why the Council considered that it would be acceptable. Neither scheme is therefore directly comparable to the appeal proposal, and they do not justify the harm identified.

Aerial photographs of properties in [address] and [address] show a variety of extensions and alterations. However, they appear to be of different design to the appeal scheme and on properties with a different relationship with their neighbours. Furthermore, I do not have the details of how these developments came to be built, the policies under which they were considered or the situation that previously existed on those sites. Therefore, they are not demonstrably comparable to the appeal scheme and do not justify the harm that would result from it.

Overall, therefore, while in isolation elements of the proposed development would not be harmful the proposal as a whole, particularly when combined with the certified lawful roof extensions, would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would fail to comply with Policy D1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2021-2036 (adopted

(LP) insofar as they seek to achieve high-quality design and require all development to complement the existing character of a dwelling and to maintain or improve the appearance of the street scene.

It would also conflict with the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) (SPD) which sets out that proposed extensions should be consistent with the form, scale, and architectural style of the original building.

The garden of No 145 is currently overlooked by rear windows in several neighbouring properties, including the appeal property. The proposal would introduce new first-floor side and rear windows closer to the shared boundary than at present. All would serve non-habitable rooms however, therefore the potential for increased overlooking is limited. The proposed side window would also be obscure glazed and fixed shut below eye level. Consequently, the proposal would not result in a harmful increase in overlooking of No 145 and would maintain an acceptable level of privacy for the occupants of that property. Therefore, it would not harm their living conditions in this respect.

Whilst the garden of No 145 narrows to a triangular point and contains a large tree, the overall outlook is relatively spacious and open owing to its depth, the converging arrangement of the other rear gardens of [address] and the low height of fenced boundaries. From first-floor level in particular there is a broad outlook across these gardens.

The depth of the proposed ground-floor extension would be similar to that of the equivalent extension to No 145. The proposed first-floor side and rear extension would project past the first floor of No 145, so would be partly visible at an angle from its rear first-floor windows, however the outlook across rear gardens would remain. The combination of extensions would be visible from the garden, however the outlook in this direction is already of substantial built form, Therefore, whilst the proposal would alter the outlook from the rear first-floor windows and garden of No 145, the impact would be limited and would maintain an acceptable level of outlook for the occupiers of that property. Therefore, the proposal would not significantly adversely affect their living conditions in terms of outlook.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No 145, having regard to privacy and outlook. It would therefore comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the LP, insofar as they require all development to allow for acceptable levels of outlook for adjoining and potential occupants. It would also comply with the guidance in the SPD regarding outlook and privacy. However, this does not overcome the harm that I have found in terms of the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has referred to requiring additional space for their growing family. [name] have no reason to doubt this is the case, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to suggest that this could not be achieved in a less harmful manner.

Reference is made to the support in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to utilising land efficiently and maximising density. The Framework also puts great emphasis on the importance of good design however, so intensification of use of the site does not justify the harm identified above.

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.