Appeal 6000643

The appeal is dismissed.

Whilst the planning application form refers to the site address as 9 [site address] , [site address] , [address], [name], Barnet, London, [postcode] , the appeal address consistent with the submitted plans is [site address] and the appeal has been considered on this basis.

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

[site address] , [site address] , is situated on the ground floor of a residential flatted development (the host property). The host property is brick built with uniformed, large open balcony areas serving flats on the upper floors of the development. The area is characterised by residential development set within spacious landscaping.

Whilst set at a lower level to the adjoining road, [address], the appeal property is located at ground level on a prominent corner of the building which is highly visible within the street scene. At my site visit, views were clearly apparent of the front elevation of the host property and [site address] on my approach into [address] from [address].

The appeal property has a small area of external space to the side elevation, situated beneath the overhang of the balcony area of the flat above. The proposed enclosure of this area with closely sited full height vertical metal railings, along with a metal gate of similar design, would appear discordant with the open balconies of the host property and adjoining flatted developments. The scale and design of the proposal would appear at odds with the host property and the surrounding area.

Furthermore, the use of full height metal railings would appear incongruous in combination with the boundary treatment adjacent to the appeal site, where metal railings are sited above a retaining wall. The overall relationship of the proposal with the boundary treatment, where two sets of metal railings would be positioned in close arrangement, would appear jarring and oppressive within the street scene.

I have had regard to the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD), as it has been referenced by both parties. Whilst the proposal is not a solid built extension to the appeal property, nonetheless it creates an enclosed, extended area to [site address] . The SPD states that extensions should respect the original building and should not be overly dominant. In addition, the SPD states that proposed extensions should be consistent with the form, scale and architectural style of the original building. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with this relevant guidance, which is a material consideration and reinforces my findings.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (TLP) (2021) which relates to optimising site capacity through the design-led approach in new development. The policy requires proposals to enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their scale, appearance and shape.

Additionally, I find conflict with Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP). The policy promotes high quality design which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, with the use of materials of a suitable quality and appearance to respect local character and setting. Furthermore, the proposal is contrary to Policy CDH05 of the BLP which supports proposals for extensions to any building that complement the character of the existing building, particularly in terms of style, form and materials.

A family member has a protected characteristic as set out in Section 149, of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), contained in the Equality Act 2010. The PSED sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. As such, I am obliged to have due regard to this consideration in my assessment of the positive effect of the proposed development on the occupier’s wellbeing.

The proposal would give the family member direct benefits of access to a safe and secure outdoor space to use. I have therefore taken the benefits of the proposal into account, as required by the PSED.

[name] sympathise with the position the family finds itself in, having regard to my assessment above there is no over-riding reason to allow the proposed development. I also have minimal information before me that demonstrates that the benefits of the appeal scheme could not be achieved in a less harmful way. As such, this does not amount to a material consideration of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the primacy of, and conflict found with, the development plan.

The appellant has stated that the appeal proposal is sited in a subterranean position and as such forms a covert location. However, I find that the flat is located at ground floor level and whilst the adjoining road, [address], is at a raised level in relation to the appeal site, nonetheless the proposed development would be highly visible within the street scene and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.