Appeal 6000403

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed part first floor rear extension at [site address] , Edgware, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1212/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 3821/03/JG, 3821/04/JG and 3821/05/JG.

Demolition or construction works shall take place only between 8am and 6pm on Mondays – Fridays and between 9am and 1pm on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

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 main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

The appeal site is located at [site address] , adjacent to 15 and [address] – a cul-de-sac defined by a strong sense of architectural uniformity and rhythm. The properties within [address] are large, detached dwellings that share a consistent palette of red brickwork, white windows, and forward-set garages. These features are repeated across the cul-de-sac, creating a cohesive and harmonious streetscape. The houses are set back from the road, with landscaped front gardens and low hedges that contribute to the area’s spacious and green character. Appeal Planning Officer 6000403

In contrast, [site address] is physically and visually distinct from this uniform group. Although it is adjacent to the end properties of [address], it is not part of the cul-de-sac and is accessed via a separate private driveway. This separation is reinforced by mature boundary planting and the orientation of the dwelling, which means that only the rear of the property is partially visible from [address]. As such, [site address] does not contribute to the formal rhythm or architectural consistency of the cul-de-sac.

[site address] itself exhibits a more individualised character with a less rigid architectural rhythm compared to the uniformity of [address]. The proposed part first floor rear extension would be located above an existing ground floor projection and would be constructed in materials to match the host dwelling. Its design is sympathetic to the existing building and would not disrupt any established pattern of development or architectural coherence, given the secluded nature of the site and its detachment from the formal layout of the cul-de-sac.

The proposed extension would be set down from the ridge and would not extend the entire width of the host dwelling. This combined with the use of matching materials would ensure that the proposal would appear as a minor and subservient addition to the host dwelling in views from [address].

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the potential loss of views and the impact on the green and open character of the area. Due to the minor nature of the proposed extension, it would appear as part of the host dwelling. Whilst it would be visible from [address], its location and orientation in relation to those dwellings means it would not block any views, and the backdrop of open land and landscaping would be retained and apparent.

In this context, the proposed extension would not appear incongruous, domineering or visually intrusive and would preserve the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the surrounding area, therefore complying with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan, and the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document. Together these seeks to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style, form and materials, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment.

Interested parties have raised a number of concerns. With regards to the potential loss of light and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Due to the siting of the extension at the rear of the property, its modest scale, and the separation distances from adjacent dwellings, the proposal would not result in any significant harm to residential living conditions. The size, scale and mass of the development would not introduce any unacceptable overshadowing or sense of enclosure.

In terms of privacy, it is noted that No 15 does not contains any side windows facing the appeal site. As such, there would be no direct window-to-window overlooking between the properties.

Concerns were also raised regarding the potential for the development to exacerbate surface water drainage or contribute to localised flooding. However, the proposed extension does not increase the area of impermeable surfaces on the site Appeal Planning Officer 6000403 and therefore would have no material effect on existing drainage conditions. Additionally, no technical evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would lead to increased flood risk.

Some representations also referred to previous refusals on the site and questioned the proposal’s compliance with the Barnet Local Plan. While the planning history of a site is a material consideration, each application and appeal must be assessed on its own merits.

I have recommended a condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty.

I also recommend a condition relating to construction works time limits. This is necessary to ensure that the demolition and construction work for the proposed development are carefully managed to mitigate potential harm to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.