Appeal 6000938

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] of Sasen, the appellant, against the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant has referred to [name] within their statement of case. However, these have been superseded by the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2033 (2025). Given that they have been superseded, and that they did not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal, I have made my assessment against the relevant policies of the most up to date Local Plan.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, and (b) the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants, with specific regard to outlook.

The appeal site is an irregularly shaped plot located in a residential area which has a highly consistent architectural style. The surrounding buildings are between 2 and 4 storeys in height. The larger blocks of flats, opposite the appeal site, have distinctive massing and angled roofs. They are set back from the road behind parking areas. Smaller buildings surround the appeal site which have a comparatively simpler form and roofscape. The surrounding buildings face into an open area which is defined by the absence of tall buildings. The presence of trees and grassed areas enhances the open and spacious character. Views beyond the appeal site to other parts of the housing estate contribute positively to the spacious character.

The existing single storey building on the appeal site is situated within the area which has an open and spacious character. Despite being in a prominent location, from street level the low flat roof of the host is not easily seen and has a discreet appearance behind the boundary fence which could appear to be part of a rear garden. As such, the site contributes positively to the open and spacious character of the area in visual terms.

The proposal would add a first floor to the existing bungalow, increasing its height above the fence line. Although the resultant height would not be as tall as the surrounding properties, the introduction of built form at first floor level would erode an element of spaciousness that is currently experienced in this area. Notwithstanding the varying heights and distinct massing of the surrounding buildings, the proposal would be an awkward addition to the existing unobtrusive host, resulting in a prominent building in the street scene.

The roof form and building line would relate to the distinctive angled roofs and massing of the blocks of flats opposite. However, the smaller buildings on the estate have a much simpler form and roofscape. As such, the proposal would be a departure from the prevailing pattern of development, contrary to the guidance set out in Section 6 of the Barnet Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (SPD) (2016).

The extension would be a large addition to the existing dwelling. Paragraph 14.9 of the SPD seeks to ensure that extensions should be subordinate to the original house, respecting the original building without being overly dominant. The proposal would not be a subordinate addition and would detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. I acknowledge that the proposal would use similar materials to the existing bungalow. However, this would not disguise the additional height and harm that I have identified.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal would be contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (Local Plan), and Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), which collectively seek to ensure that development responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, including scale massing and roof form, and follow good design principles.

The rear elevation of the existing bungalow abuts its boundary with [address], while the side elevation faces the front elevation of dwellings on [address], which are separated by a car parking area. The increased height would be positioned on part of the footprint of the exiting dwelling, towards the front elevation. Section 7 of the Residential Design Guidance SPD identifies that all habitable rooms should have adequate outlook where nearby walls or buildings do not appear overbearing or unduly dominant.

As alluded to, the area around the appeal site is open and spacious and the buildings have a high degree of separation which contribute to the openness. From the upper floor windows of nearby dwellings, the outlook is open and likely to be pleasant with occupiers likely enjoying the spaciousness and landscaping of the area. The first floor extension would introduce built form at a higher level to the rear of no. 14, in close proximity to rear facing windows and the rear garden. From here the proposal would appear as an overbearing, intrusive addition which would significantly reduce the open outlook that occupiers of this property currently experience.

Given that the dwellings on [address] are separated from the appeal site by a car parking area, there would be a degree of separation between the proposed extension and these existing dwellings on [address]. Although the extension would result in built form at first floor level on the site where there is none at present, the open outlook currently experienced by the occupants would not be significantly reduced owing to the separation distance of the proposed extension.

Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the daylight/sunlight and overshadowing diagram, particularly the separation distances. In any case, given the existing openness of the site and my observations during my site visit, the proposal would negatively impact the outlook of the occupants of no. 14 and the occupants of the perpendicular dwellings on [address] from habitable rooms on the rear and front respectively, as well as having an overbearing impact on the garden of no. 14.

The proposed skylights would be set at a height that would help to protect the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. I am also aware that the daylight/sunlight and overshadowing diagram demonstrates that there would be no loss to light or overshadowing. However, these factors are neutral in my consideration and do not outweigh the harm I have found in respect of the outlook of neighbouring occupiers.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants, with specific regard to outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Local Plan, and Policy D3 of the London Plan which collectively seek to ensure that proposals provide a good standard of amenity that allows acceptable levels of outlook for adjoining occupants.

For the above reasons the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.