Appeal 6001153

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed reference to “retrospective” in the description of development in the banner heading above as this is not a form of development.

An application under [name]. 18/3891/HSE was subsequently dismissed on appeal1 (the previous appeal) for a single storey side and rear extension, new front porch and erection of rear outbuilding. In accordance with case law, the previous appeal decision is a material consideration as it is necessary to have consistency in decision making. This appeal differs from the previous appeal primarily with regards to the roof construction of the proposed side and rear extensions. I note that a further retrospective planning permission for a single storey side and rear extension was refused by the Council in 2019 under [name]. 19/3434/RCU.

Because the appeal site lies in the Watling Estate Conservation Area (CA), I have had special regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCAA).

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area including the Watling Estate Conservation Area within which the site lies.

The appeal site is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling with hipped roof which has off street parking to the front and garden to the rear. The terrace within which the host property is located is finished with horizontal black weatherboard. The surrounding area comprises dwellings arranged in short terraces, with gaps 1 APP/N5090/D/18/3214764 between them and small green spaces at junctions which provides an evenly spaced, uniform pattern to the street scene.

The CA is a large residential estate built between the 1920s and 1930s as part of the post war house building programme. The significance of the CA is both historical and architectural reflected in the deliberate positioning of buildings and short terraces of a similar scale, form and height. The appeal site forms part of one such terrace, which retains its symmetrical appearance and therefore contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA.

A front porch and single storey extension which wraps around the side and rear of the host property is already in place. The proposed extension would be stepped back from the front elevation of the host dwelling but would join the rear extension, extending well beyond its depth. Cumulatively, the rear and side extensions would visually dominate the ground floor of the host property and erode its well-balanced proportions. Furthermore, the flat roof design of the extensions would be boxy additions which are not in keeping with the traditional appearance of the host dwelling and wider terrace, with its simple, hipped roof design.

As the dwelling at the other end of the terrace retains its original form, the proposal would undermine the visual symmetry of the terrace, which is an important feature of the CA. The side extension would also erode much of the gap between it and the adjoining dwelling, disrupting the well-spaced layout of the street scene. Since the adjoining dwelling at No 100 is positioned at an angle to the appeal site, the side extension would be prominent when approaching from the direction of [address]. Taken together, the scale and form of the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the CA.

The Council have not raised concerns in relation to the proposed front porch, as permitted development rights provide a realistic fallback position, and I concur.

The appellant has referred me to examples of extensions to other properties in [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address] and [name] which have extensions of differing scale and design. However, I do not have the full details of these cases before me, including whether they have permission or the circumstances which led to the permission being granted. Therefore, I cannot be confident that they are directly comparable to the appeal scheme. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In conclusion, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property which contributes positively to the CA. I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where harm is identified to the significance of designated heritage assets and their setting, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would provide additional living accommodation for the appellant, however this would largely be a private benefit. I therefore attribute limited weight to the public benefits of the proposal, which is insufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA. Given this and the above, I conclude that the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the LBCAA, Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CDH01, CDH05 and CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025). Together, these policies seek to ensure amongst other things that development proposals respond sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of conservation areas.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.