Appeal 6000569

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 main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and host building.

The appeal property occupies a prominent corner plot fronting [address], a wide residential street characterised by large, two-storey, detached houses set back from the highway. The appeal property sits between [address] and [address]. Its front elevation follows [address]’s building line, and its side elevation aligns with the neighbouring properties on [address], which are also set back from the highway. Owing to its location and the sloping topography towards the junction, the corner plot sits in a prominent position, with views of the corner plot’s open space contributing positively to the open, spacious feel of [address] and [address].

While the designs of the properties along [address] and [address] are not uniform, there is a consistent use of white render with timber (mock Tudor) and red buff brick, complemented by gable features and bay windows. Where porches exist, they typically align with the bay window projection. Taken together, these characteristics provide a rhythm and consistency to the street scene. Appeal Planning Officer 6000569

The proposed side and rear extension, together with the roof extension, would bring the development closer to the highway and project further than the building line of [address], introducing an addition which would dominate views along [address]. The massing and scale of the first-floor extension would unduly dominate the host property, a perception heightened by the roofline not being set down from the host building. This would harm the spacious and open character of the corner plot, as well as overwhelm the host property in its design as a dominant addition.

The first-floor terrace to the side elevation would further increase the width and visual dominance of the side extension. Terraces are not characteristic of the area and would appear incongruous. Despite boundary treatments, the terraces to the side and rear elevations would remain visible from [address], drawing attention and disrupting the prevailing pattern of development along the street scene.

The front and porch extension would replace the existing bay window and project further than the existing elevation. The porch would introduce a significant bulk to the front elevation that would draw the eye and further add to the scale of the proposal. This would result in a bulky, incongruent addition that would be harmful to the building’s design and further dominate the host building.

The appellant refers to the residential properties opposite the appeal property as examples of dominant, large developments that differ in design from the surrounding area. Whilst it is acknowledged these dwellings are substantial in size, their materials and features have been considered in relation to the context of the wider street scene. Nos. 4 and [address] have also been cited as being larger than the proposal. I do not have the measurements before me to confirm this; however, even if that were the case, these examples, as well as that opposite, do not sit within prominent corner plots and respect the established building lines.

The block of flats situated on the opposite corner plot of [address] is a prominent development positioned close to the [address] highway boundary. While its scale and massing are notable, this building is not representative of the prevailing character of the street scene. Consequently, it does not provide a compelling precedent and does not justify the harm I have outlined above that would result from the proposal.

For the reasons above, I conclude the proposal would result in harm to the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2021-2036) ([name] 2025), and the guidance contained within theResidential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (October

which, among other things, seek to ensure development responds to the local context of the area and host building, with extensions remaining subordinate to the host building.

The appellant refers to paragraphs within the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) that promote sustainable development and the efficient and effective use of land. Given this is a domestic extension, with minor economic benefits and no addition to housing supply, this carries little weight. Furthermore, the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character, Appeal Planning Officer 6000569 which I have concluded this proposal does not demonstrate and therefore is not supported by the Framework.

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.