Appeal 6001807

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect the proposed mansard roof extension would have on the appearance and character of the terrace of which No [address] forms part.

There is dispute in terms by the Appellant as to whether the proposed development would amount to the addition of a third floor to the appeal property. Terminology aside, the plain fact is that the development would place a mansard roof form above the present flat roof, adding to the rear elevation and enclosing an additional room at third floor level within the present house in multiple occupation (HMO).

The appeal property, No [address], is within a terrace of residential properties distinguished by pairs of rearward projections. To the south of the appeal site, at Nos 735 to 741, these rear elements have symmetrical pitched roofs. In contrast, No 743 and its immediate neighbour, No 745, as well as the rest of the terrace to the north, from Nos 747 to 753, all have flat-roofed rearward projections.

Clearly, the upward extension to No 743 would markedly unbalance the appearance of the pair of rearward elements formed with No 745 and introduce a mansard roof alien to the present roofscape of the terrace as a whole.

Thus, although there is a distinct break in the roof form between Nos 745 and 743, the present terrace exhibits a pleasing degree of visual consistency and harmony. This would be severely disrupted by the proposed asymmetrical addition to Nos 743 and 745.

It is to be recognised that both local and national policy favours upward extensions to buildings to make efficient use of urban sites. But that is expressly subject to consistency with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene.

I agree with the Appellant that there is great variation in the scale and form of buildings in the wider area. However, I also agree with the Council that it is the effect that this proposed development would have on the immediate terrace, as viewed in the outlook from many other properties, which is of the greater importance in the present case.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of No [address] and the whole terrace of which it forms part.

I therefore consider the appeal proposal to be in significant and unacceptable conflict with the provision of Policy CDHO1 of the adopted Barnet Local Plan that new built development should be designed to a high standard, responding sensitively to distinctive local character.

I have found that the proposed built development would harm the appearance of the terrace when viewed in the outlook from the adjacent and other nearby properties. However, I do not share the concern of the Council that the residential amenity of No [address], specifically, would be adversely affected by any additional undue sense of enclosure or dominance.

I find no other factor in the written evidence to affect my decision.

I recognise that this proposal has attracted no third-party objection and that the extension would provide one additional room at this HMO within a highly sustainable location.

However, a lack of local objection is no ground for approval, and, in my judgement, any material planning benefit would be far outweighed by the substantial objection I have identified in terms of character and appearance. This places the proposal into conflict with relevant local and national policy and with the development plan as a whole.

Dismissal of this appeal is accordingly warranted.