Appeal 6000709

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 proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with regard to light and outlook.

The host dwelling is a two-storey mid-terrace house typical of development in the surrounding area, the street scene of which generally consists of short terraces with long rear gardens. The rear elevations of the host dwelling and neighbouring terraces face downhill towards a park.

No 64 adjoins and appears similar to the appeal site. On its rear elevation, the principal window serving a habitable ground floor room is located near the shared boundary. A short, stepped timber boundary fence visible from the window has a minimal impact on the current outlook as a result of its low height and minor scale. Taken together with the downward gradient of the long gardens and the undeveloped park beyond, the occupants of No 64 appear to receive a generous amount of light by way of the pleasant and relatively unrestricted view from this window.

The proposed development would extend the width of the rear garden with a render side wall close to the rear facing window at No 64. The wall would extend above the height of the window and beyond the existing boundary fence at this level of the garden. Cumulatively, the siting, scale, and materials of the proposal would make it appear as a dominant feature in views from the neighbouring window. It would Appeal Planning Officer 6000709 obstruct the open outlook for current and future occupants of No 64, creating an enclosing effect and significantly reducing the amount of light that currently enters the room.

The Council has confirmed that a number of rear extensions with depths exceeding the guidance contained within the Barnet London Borough Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) (SPD) were granted planning permission on [address]. [name] do not have the full details of those cases, I cannot be certain that they represent a direct parallel with this appeal. Nevertheless, in this case I find that the depth of the proposal together with its height and proximity to the neighbouring window, would comprise a visually intrusive structure that would considerably reduce the amount of light the window receives.

I have had regard to the personal circumstances put forward by the appellant. However, I am not convinced that the proposed extension is the only way to accommodate the needs of the occupants, which could be achieved through a less harmful proposal.

For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 64, with regard to light and outlook. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025), and the guidance contained within the SPD. Together these seek to ensure that development is not visually intrusive, creating an overbearing and enclosing effect and resulting in unacceptable harm to current and future occupants of neighbouring properties due to a loss of light and outlook.

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.