Appeal 6000396

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed superfluous text, relating to the amended description and plans, from the original description of development in the heading above, for reasons of clarity.

On my site visit it was evident that works have commenced and are ongoing. These works are a departure from what was approved under the original permission (Ref: 23/2011/FUL).

Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the appeal property into three self-contained flats including various alterations such as a roof extension with rear dormer window and rooflight and a single storey side and rear extension. Condition 1 of that approval requires development to be built in accordance with the approved plans.

In essence, the appellant seeks a new permission to amend Condition 1 to allow for various amendments to the design of the property. As set out in the submitted application form, the changes include amending the height of the side infill extension and amending the set in from the neighbouring boundary.

It is noted that various other amendments not referenced in the submitted application form, such as additional rooflights and roof dormers are shown on the proposed plans. The Council has however only raised concerns regarding the single storey side and rear extension in its refusal reason. My decision therefore focusses on the side and rear extension.

The main issue is the effect of the changes to the single storey side and rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.90), with regard to outlook.

The appeal site relates to a property on [address], close to the junction with [address]. The surrounding area is characterised mainly by two storey semi-detached residential properties.

On my site visit, the ground floor rear and side elevation windows of No.90 appeared to serve habitable rooms. Another small window on the side elevation of No.90 was obscurely glazed, possibly serving a bathroom. The increased height of the flank wall would result in the extension appearing more dominant and intrusive when viewed from the rear and side windows serving habitable rooms at No.90. As originally approved, the lower height of the flank wall and the roof slope would reduce the impact on the windows, allowing for an improved outlook.

The appellant indicates that the extension would be reduced in width. However, this would not adequately offset the impact of the increased height of the wall, which would be readily apparent from the rear and side windows of No.90.

The rear and side facing windows would face an enclosed side return under the original approval, and such layouts may be typical of suburban areas. However, the increased height would harm the outlook from the windows to an unacceptable degree. The appellant contends that the side facing windows at No.90 are not primary outlooks, however there is no substantive evidence before me to confirm that this is the case.

For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the changes to the single storey side and rear extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], in that it would harm the outlook from the ground floor rear and side facing windows. The scheme would be contrary to Policy CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan and Policy D3 of the London Plan. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure acceptable levels of outlook for neighbouring occupiers. It would also be contrary to the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance, which amongst other things, seeks to prevent loss of outlook from neighbouring properties.

There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. As set out above, the scheme would not accord with the development plan. Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which relates to achieving appropriate densities, is of limited relevance in the circumstances of this appeal.

The scheme may retain the architectural and residential character of the area. It may also ensure the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. These are however neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

The appellant contends that the height of the extension does not exceed permitted development height limits in many circumstances, such as an outbuilding erected along the shared boundary with a neighbouring property. However, I have little evidence before me to support this claim. I am therefore unable to conclude that this offers a realistic or probable prospect and consequently it does not represent a legitimate fallback position. Whilst single storey extensions may commonly be of a similar height, I must consider the appeal on its planning merits, including its effect on neighbouring properties, with regard to outlook.

The Council outlines how the changes would likely reduce daylight levels to the rear and side facing habitable rooms windows at No.90. This is however not referenced in the refusal reason. As this matter would not be determinative, I have not considered it further.

The changes may address construction practicality and ensure better usability of the internal space. These matters would however not outweigh the harm identified.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.