Appeal 6000410

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as ‘erection of a ground floor and first floor extension; a 2-storey side extension; alterations to the roof and changes to the fenestration of the front elevation, including a dormer window’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1270/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 the following approved plans: Site Plan – [name] as Proposed 6324-SK- 103, Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 6324-PL-104, First Floor Plan as Proposed 6324-PL-105, Second Floor Plan as Proposed 6324-PL-106, Roof Plan as Proposed 6324-PL-107, Front & [name] as Proposed 6324-PL-108, Rear & [name] as Proposed 6324-PL-109, Section AA as Proposed 6324-PL-110, and [name] and Proposed 6324-111.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The extensions hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the first floor window to the north side elevation shown as such on the approved plans has been fitted with obscured glazing of no less than Level 3 of the Pilkington range of textured glass (or equivalent), and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which they are installed shall be capable of being opened. The windows shall be retained as such thereafter.

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 site is a generous plot located in an attractive verdant residential area, with many properties having been significantly enlarged or rebuilt over time. Consequently, there is a wide variety of architectural styles and dwelling sizes, with gaps between buildings varying accordingly, influenced by extensions and individual plot configurations. Dwellings are typically set back behind front gardens that incorporate off-road parking.

The appeal scheme would noticeably enlarge the host dwelling. That said, its width and height would still retain the character of a large, detached home with an individual design, consistent with the street’s pattern of equally sizeable, detached properties featuring different architectural styles. The set back from the road frontage would ensure that the scale of the proposals would not be unacceptably prominent, particularly within such a varied architectural context.

The gap between the appeal site and boundary with Number [address], while reducing the separation between dwellings, would reflect the evolving pattern of development in the area and would not undermine its character. Crucially, this adjustment addresses one of the key concerns identified in the previous appeal, thereby overcoming issues relating to the relationship between the two properties.

For these reasons, the development would not harm the character and appearance of surrounding area and would not conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2026 (2025) or guidance contained in Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) and the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure new development responds positively to local context, drawing on building forms and patterns of development, and optimises site capacity in a sensitive and sustainable manner.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by neighbouring residents regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on their living conditions. However, the proposed first-floor rear extension has been reduced in depth from the previous scheme and would be positioned away from the shared boundary. In this context and having regard to the presence of an existing single-storey rear extension at No.85, the development would not appear unduly overbearing or give rise to an unacceptable sense of enclosure. Furthermore, the submitted daylight and sunlight report demonstrates compliance with BRE guidance, confirming that the rear-facing windows and garden of No. 85 would not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight. The design and separation distances also ensure that there would be no significant loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have set out a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans for enforcement purposes. A condition requiring the use of materials matching that of the existing building is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development. A condition requiring the use of obscure glazing for the first floor window on the north elevation would be reasonable and necessary in order to safeguard the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

A condition has been suggested for no new windows or doors without prior authorisation to be created in the side elevations of the development. However, this would not be necessary as a separate permission or compliance with the permitted development regime would be needed for the insertion of new openings in the side elevations of the upper floors. New windows in the ground floor side elevation would, given surrounding development and boundary treatment, unlikely adversely affect neighbours’ living conditions. A further condition limiting access to the roof would not be necessary since a separate permission would be required to use it as a balcony.

The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions specified.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out.