Appeal 6000563

The appeal is dismissed.

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 description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description used in the Council’s decision notice, which reflects accurately and concisely the proposal before me.

Under a previous application (Ref:25/1232/192) the appellant had obtained a lawful development certificate for a roof extension involving a rear dormer window. This was under construction at the time of my site visit and therefore shall be taken into consideration as part of the host dwelling.

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

No. [site address] (no 63) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a garden that slopes down towards the highway. The street is predominantly characterised by semi-detached dwellings, which front onto the highway and are set back behind front gardens, many of which are elevated due to the topography Appeal Planning Officer 6000563 of the area. Front gardens and hedgerows contribute a strong green character, softening the built form and enhancing visual amenity.

Whilst some dwellings have been altered over time there is a general consistency in bay window features and the use of render which gives the area a degree of uniformity. The combination of setback plots, landscaped frontages, and consistent architectural detailing results in a pleasant, open streetscape with a coherent residential character. The rear garden of the host dwelling adjoins the crematorium gardens; however, existing vegetation largely screens the appeal site from the public realm.

The proposed development would result in a substantial increase in depth, width, and overall scale to the existing two-storey outrigger. When considered cumulatively with the rear box dormer already under construction this would create an overly bulky form with dominating flat roofs that fails to respect the proportions of the host dwelling. Such an enlargement and design would be unsympathetic to both the host building itself and the established character of the surrounding area. Although the rear extension would be largely screened from view, it would be clearly apparent from neighbouring properties and in glimpses from the crematorium gardens at the rear of the property, appearing as a dominant and unsympathetic addition.

The appellant has highlighted some schemes within the area that had similar aspects. This included 41 and [address], [address] and [address]. These sites are not directly comparable with the specific circumstances of the appeal site due to scale and design. I also do not have the full details of the circumstances that led to these developments being approved and cannot therefore be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. Consequently, I have assigned limited weight to these particular schemes.

The appellant has drawn attention to the poor condition of the external finishes on the host dwelling. While this is acknowledged, any potential benefit arising from their improvement is significantly outweighed by the harm that would result from the proposed development. It is further noted that I am not convinced that the proposed development is the only method of remedying the condition of the external finishes. Accordingly, this consideration is afforded only limited weight.

The proposed first floor development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Therefore, the proposed development would be in conflict with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (adopted 2025) (BLP) and the guidance contained within the [name] (2016). These together seek, amongst other things, to ensure new development is well-integrated, respects and complements the existing building and are subordinate to the existing building in terms of size and scale.

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

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

The appeal is dismissed.

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 description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description used in the Council’s decision notice, which reflects accurately and concisely the proposal before me.

Under a previous application (Ref:25/1232/192) the appellant had obtained a lawful development certificate for a roof extension involving a rear dormer window. This was under construction at the time of my site visit and therefore shall be taken into consideration as part of the host dwelling.

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

No. [site address] (no 63) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a garden that slopes down towards the highway. The street is predominantly characterised by semi-detached dwellings, which front onto the highway and are set back behind front gardens, many of which are elevated due to the topography Appeal Planning Officer 6000563 of the area. Front gardens and hedgerows contribute a strong green character, softening the built form and enhancing visual amenity.

Whilst some dwellings have been altered over time there is a general consistency in bay window features and the use of render which gives the area a degree of uniformity. The combination of setback plots, landscaped frontages, and consistent architectural detailing results in a pleasant, open streetscape with a coherent residential character. The rear garden of the host dwelling adjoins the crematorium gardens; however, existing vegetation largely screens the appeal site from the public realm.

The proposed development would result in a substantial increase in depth, width, and overall scale to the existing two-storey outrigger. When considered cumulatively with the rear box dormer already under construction this would create an overly bulky form with dominating flat roofs that fails to respect the proportions of the host dwelling. Such an enlargement and design would be unsympathetic to both the host building itself and the established character of the surrounding area. Although the rear extension would be largely screened from view, it would be clearly apparent from neighbouring properties and in glimpses from the crematorium gardens at the rear of the property, appearing as a dominant and unsympathetic addition.

The appellant has highlighted some schemes within the area that had similar aspects. This included 41 and [address], [address] and [address]. These sites are not directly comparable with the specific circumstances of the appeal site due to scale and design. I also do not have the full details of the circumstances that led to these developments being approved and cannot therefore be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. Consequently, I have assigned limited weight to these particular schemes.

The appellant has drawn attention to the poor condition of the external finishes on the host dwelling. While this is acknowledged, any potential benefit arising from their improvement is significantly outweighed by the harm that would result from the proposed development. It is further noted that I am not convinced that the proposed development is the only method of remedying the condition of the external finishes. Accordingly, this consideration is afforded only limited weight.

The proposed first floor development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Therefore, the proposed development would be in conflict with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (adopted 2025) (BLP) and the guidance contained within the [name] (2016). These together seek, amongst other things, to ensure new development is well-integrated, respects and complements the existing building and are subordinate to the existing building in terms of size and scale.

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

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