Appeal 6000406

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for alteration and extension to roof involving rear dormer window and 2no. front facing rooflights, raising of main roof ridge and changes to ground floor rear fenestration at [site address] , Southgate, Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1246/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s O43-01-1008 (proposed block plan), O43-02-1004 (proposed plans), O43-02-1005 (proposed elevations), and O43-02-1006 (proposed roof plan and sections).

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal dwelling is part of a semi-detached pair sited on a corner plot. The property has previously had a two-storey side extension, creating a dual gable frontage, in contrast to its adjoining neighbour and the other similarly designed dwellings on this stretch of the road. The gables have mock-Tudor timber detailing and there are bay windows to the ground floor. The road slopes, creating a difference in ridge height between the appeal dwelling and the adjoining dwelling; this difference is repeated on other pairs of houses.

Owing to its corner location, the rear of the appeal site is also visible from [address]. From this angle, the established roofline of the appeal dwelling is clearly visible as is its relationship with the attached property and the wider roofscape of Oakdale. This angle also showcases the various rear dormers and rear-projecting hipped roof extensions which are now established features of the roofscape.

When appreciated in views from both Oakdale and [address], the proposed hipped roof extension would be read as a harmonious addition to the roofscape. While it would incorporate part of the existing side extension under the main roof of the appeal dwelling, the rest of the roof of that extension would remain at a lower level. The roof extension combined with the small increase in the ridge height would result in a slight increase of the mass of the roof form, however it would remain proportional to the scale of the host dwelling and to the surrounding dwellings.

The sloping topography of the street means the increased ridge height would be aligned with the adjoining property. While a stepped roofline is part of the character of this area, the corner location of this plot and the articulation provided by the existing side extension means that the removal of the existing stepped ridge would not appear dominant and would allow it to sit comfortably within the established rhythm of development.

The introduction of a crown roof to the existing first floor extension would allow the proposed roof dormer to sit comfortably within the roofscape and reduce any competition for dominance of the resulting roof forms. It would not appear visually busy or cluttered when compared with the existing variety of roof forms on this elevation and in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, the proposed dormer window at the appeal site would not appear as an incongruous addition and rather would sit comfortably within this area, where numerous rear dormers already feature.

As a cumulative development, the proposal would assimilate well within the established streetscape which features a variety of extensions and roof alterations. Whilst a degree of prominence is to be expected given the corner plot of the appeal site, the proposed development would not stand out in its context and would be legibly read as a thoughtful addition to the site.

Overall, therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (adopted 2025) which require development proposals to respond sensitively to local character and design, notably building and roof form, and to complement the character of the existing building, particularly in terms of style, form and materials. It would also comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which requires development to be of high quality.

Furthermore, insofar as it is relevant, it does not conflict with the guidance within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) which guides that extensions should reflect the design of the original building and have regard to the character of the area.

I recommend conditions for the commencement of development and compliance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. A condition to secure materials to match the existing dwelling is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has suggested conditions relating to the use of the roof extension for repair and maintenance only and preventing its use as a balcony, seating area or similar, in order to preserve the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. However, given the size, location and the adjacent sloping roofs of the proposed crown roof, it is unlikely that its use as a balcony or similar would be an appealing option. Therefore, the condition is not necessary.

The Council has similarly suggested a condition to prevent any windows or doors being installed in the side elevation facing [address], for the same reason. However, it is not reasonable to restrict permitted development rights on an existing area of the dwelling that is not being altered as part of the proposed scheme. In any event, any windows introduced to this elevation above ground floor level under permitted development rights would be required to obscure glazed and fixed shut up to 1.7m above internal floor level. This would prevent harmful overlooking. Therefore, the condition is not necessary.

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 agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions set out above.