Appeal 6000390

The appeal is dismissed.

Whilst the application form and the Council’s decision notice state that this is a retrospective application, I have considered the proposal as shown on the plans provided.

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

The street of Upway is situated within a predominantly residential area characterised by two-storey properties. Near the southern entrance of Upway, a group of two-storey dwellings is set close to the street frontage. Further north along the road, a group of two-storey terraced dwellings positioned further back from the road. Whilst some properties have undergone alterations or extensions, their original character of these dwellings is still clearly discernible.

The appeal development comprises 7 no air-conditioning units positioned on the flat roof of a single storey rear extension. Although each unit is relatively modest in size, their number, dispersed arrangement and elevated siting at first-floor level would create a visually cluttered appearance and result in an overtly commercial character. As such, their appearance would be at odds and would materially erode the residential character of the host dwelling.

The adverse effect would be exacerbated by the visibility of these units from the street scene along [address], as well as from the rear of properties on [address], where they would appear as prominent and incongruous features within the street scene. Taken together, the appeal development would cause harm to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the wider residential area.

Although neither the appeal site nor the surrounding area is subject to a heritage designation, this does not imply that all forms of development would be acceptable. In this instance, the form, siting, and cumulative visual effect of the appeal development would fail to respect that residential character, resulting in harm to the appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. The absence of a heritage designation does not overweigh the importance of these design considerations.

The appellant has expressed a willingness to provide details of a timber acoustic screen to obscure the air-conditioning units by way of discharging planning condition. Whilst some information has been provided regarding the height of the screen, there is insufficient detail relating to its length, design and overall appearance. Although timber is commonly used in domestic settings, the acoustic screen would occupy an elevated and projecting position. Due to its elevated position, the screen would be highly visible, and its design could materially affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to defer consideration of its detailed design to planning condition.

Whilst the acoustic screen may provide some mitigation of noise emitted by the air-conditioning units, and the appellant highlights the need for air-conditioning in response to rising urban temperatures, noting that the units are energy-efficient and support sustainability objectives, these benefits are limited, and they do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the appeal development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan (March 2025) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021). Taken together, these require that development is designed to a high standard and is in keeping with the character of the area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.