Appeal 6000717

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the adjacent properties 115, 117, 119 and [site address] , [name], London [postcode] , a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwellinghouse located within a residential area characterised by a range of property types and ages. Terraced, semi-detached, detached and flatted developments, largely arranged over two or three storeys are apparent in the locality. Whilst there is variation in the building type, there is a general consistency to building lines where properties are set back from the road with generous landscaped front garden areas and off-street parking. The varied building typography and spacious landscaping contributes to an attractive and characterful area.

No [site address] , in addition to the adjoining semi-detached house (no 119) and an adjacent pair of semi-detached properties no’s 115 and 117, form a NDHA and are included in the Council’s Local Heritage List (2020). The local listing states that the properties are selected due to their age and rarity. The buildings are prominent semi-detached houses which have unifying features that include their [name] revival-style red and white facades, their four large two-storey bays, and their vernacular vs classical variations at roof level. I observed the valuable contribution the aesthetic and architectural significance of the group made to the street at my site visit.

Additionally, the properties hold social and communal historic value as they comprise four of thirty-two surviving houses built in the wider area which were established as part of an early mid-Victorian freehold land society which enabled working people to gain land ownership.

The proposed first floor extension above the existing single storey garage would include an asymmetrical roof form which is not a characteristic feature of the adjoining properties. The substantial scale and incongruous design of the development would appear out of place in this setting and would not form a subservient relationship to the host building. I find the design of the projecting bay window at front ground floor level and first floor front elevation window, would not replicate the size, proportions or detailing of the front bay windows or fenestration present within the NDHA and would result in a contrived design. Furthermore, whilst asymmetric in form, the erection of an additional storey to the existing garage would be of a scale and height whereby the two-storey proposal would erode the gap between no 121 and the adjoining property, no 121A. This would have a detrimental impact to the setting of the host property and the NDHA.

The appellant has stated that the proposal would not be particularly prominent when viewed from the street scene as it is set back from the principal elevation of the host property, in combination with a substantial set back from the public highway. Whilst the positioning of the appeal site is noted, I find that the proposed development would be highly visible within the street scene and discordant in this setting. At my site visit, views were clearly apparent of the front elevation of the host property and existing garage on my approach to the appeal site from [address]. Consequently, the incongruous design and scale of the proposal would cause substantial harm to the setting of the NDHA and the surrounding area.

General reference is made to other development in the vicinity, but no specific examples are drawn to my attention for comparison. Mention is also made of the planning history of the site. I have considered the proposal on the entirety of the evidence put to me and my own observations.

The proposal would provide an additional residential unit which would make a positive but small contribution to local housing supply. Given its scale, I have given this public benefit limited weight which is insufficient to outweigh the substantial harm to the NDHA and the surrounding area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would result in unjustified harm to the setting and significance of the NDHA. This is contrary to policy HC1 of The London Plan (2021) (TLP) which relates to heritage conservation and growth where development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation with their surroundings. I also find conflict with Policy D3 of TLP where development should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

Additionally, I find conflict with Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) which promotes high quality design which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design. Furthermore, the proposal is contrary to Policy CDH08 of the BLP which requires that NDHA are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. Development proposals, including external alterations and extensions, are encouraged to take opportunities to better reveal and enhance the significance of NDHA and their settings. Furthermore, as required by Policy CDH08 of the BLP, a balanced judgment has been taken with regard to the scale of harm, taking into account any public benefits that might result.

In coming to my determination, I have had regard to the representations received both for and against the proposal. Those made in support refer to the character of the area, the need for housing and that there has been other similar development in the locality. These are matters which I have already addressed in the main issue. Hence these factors do not compensate for the harm that I have found and do not lead me to a different finding overall.

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. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.