Appeal 6001599

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side/rear infill extension, first floor rear extension, insertion of 2no. front facing rooflights, alteration to roof of existing outrigger from pitched roof to a flat roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3064/RCU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: GDP300/101 and GDP300/102.

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 description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description used in the Council’s decision notice, which accurately and concisely reflects the development before me. I have also omitted the word ‘retrospective’ from the decision as it does not describe an act of development.

The initial planning application was submitted retrospectively, and at the time of my site visit the development had already been constructed. I observed that what had been built accords with the drawings submitted, and I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the development as implemented.

The Council’s decision notice refers to an alleged unauthorised boundary fence. This does not appear on the submitted plans before me however and does not form part of the development under my consideration. I have therefore not taken the fence into account in making my recommendation on this appeal. Appeal Planning Officer 6001599

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants of [address], with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential neighbourhood characterised by terraced housing, where rear extensions and alterations form a common feature of the established streetscape. The host property, No 65, is a mid-terrace dwelling. No 63 has a single storey rear projection that is set back from the mutual boundary and contains two windows facing towards the boundary with No 65 and a further ground floor rear window in the main dwelling.

The existing outlook from, and light to, the ground floor side and rear windows of No 63 are limited due to the proximity of boundary treatments and existing extensions. The single-storey infill part of the appeal scheme extends up to the shared boundary with the adjoining property at No 63 and projects several metres beyond the rear of the main part of that property, although not as far as the original outrigger. Consequently, this extension occupies a significant proportion of the immediate outlook from the neighbouring ground-floor windows. The combination of its height, depth and proximity have resulted in a greater sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 63 than previously existed, reducing the outlook from the rear and side facing ground floor windows and creating a overbearing relationship.

The orientation of the dwellings and the presence of an existing outrigger means that the proposal is unlikely to materially affect sunlight reaching the rear and side ground floor windows of No 63. It is likely however that there has been some loss of daylight to these windows due to the height, depth and proximity of the infill extension.

Taken together, the loss of outlook and daylight have materially harmed the living conditions of the occupiers of No 63. Therefore, the proposed development conflicts with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (adopted 2025) (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP). These policies, amongst other things, collectively seek to ensure new development does not have significant adverse impacts on daylight, outlook and spacing to surrounding buildings.

[name] 2025 the Council granted planning permission for a scheme including a similar single-storey infill extension (Ref. 24/5251/HSE). The approved development incorporated a pitched glazed roof over the single-storey infill element, which was slightly shorter than the appeal scheme and had lower eaves close to the boundary. Nevertheless, it would still occupy a similar distance along the boundary with No 63 and have eaves well above a standard fence height, with the roof rising away to a first floor extension similar to that proposed in this appeal.

The differences between the approved scheme and the appeal development are therefore minor and the effect of the approved scheme on the outlook from No 63 and the daylight to its windows would be very similar to that of the appeal Appeal Planning Officer 6001599 development. The appeal scheme would not therefore result in materially greater harm that what has already been permitted on the site.

Given the close similarity between the extant permission and the appeal scheme, there is a strong and credible prospect that the fallback development would be implemented if this appeal was dismissed. This is therefore an important material consideration which carries significant weight. In this context, the fallback position justifies determining the appeal other than strictly in accordance with the

Time and materials conditions are not required as the development is complete. A condition setting out the approved plans in necessary for clarity. The Council has suggested two additional conditions. A restriction on using the roof of the single storey extension as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity space is not necessary as the installation of such would require planning permission in its own right.

Under permitted development rights, any new side-facing window installed above ground-floor level must be obscure glazed and fixed shut up to 1.7 m above the internal floor level. At ground-floor level, any side windows or doors would be screened by the existing boundary treatment. These measures would prevent harmful overlooking, so removing permitted development rights for new side windows is not necessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the above condition.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the condition listed above.