Appeal 6001827

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the host terrace and the local area.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling that forms part of a cohesive and largely unaltered terrace within a predominantly residential area. A notable and consistent feature of this terrace is the presence of a 2-storey front elevation with a modest forward projection to one side at ground floor level. These existing front projections are of similar scale and are evenly spaced that create an architectural rhythm across the terrace, which is locally distinctive.

The uniformity of built form and regular spacing of the single storey forward projections contributes positively to the character of the terrace and to the street scene. As the front elevations of properties within this terrace are visible from the road, they form a prominent component of the area’s character.

The proposal is to replace the existing forward projection with a larger new addition that would extend across the full width of the host dwelling. It would also project further forward of the main front wall than its existing counterpart. Although limited to a single storey, the proposed extension would significantly increase the built form across the frontage of No 65 and alter the established composition of the dwelling.

In particular, the full-width component of the appeal scheme would erode the balanced relationship between the recessed main elevation and the modest front projection that is characteristic of the terrace. The combined width and forward projection of the new addition would also disrupt the established rhythm created by the evenly spaced forward projections along the terrace. As the only example of such development within this row, it would appear visually intrusive and incongruous. While the external materials are indicated to match the existing dwelling, this would not overcome the fundamental change to the built form and spatial pattern that gives the terrace its coherence.

I saw that some properties in the local area have been extended and altered at the front including those to which the appellant has referred and provided photographs. However, these examples are not located within the same terrace as No 65. The terrace to which the appeal dwelling belongs displays a high degree of uniformity and appears to largely retain its original built form. It is in that context that the proposal would be mainly seen. The presence of extensions and alterations within the wider estate does not diminish the positive contribution made by this intact terrace to local character, nor does it justify the introduction of a discordant and unsympathetic form of development within it.

For these reasons, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace and the street scene. Accordingly, it is contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036. These policies promote high quality design and require extensions to complement the character of the host building and maintain or improve the appearance of the street scene. It is also at odds with the guidance within the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document, which reinforces these policy objectives.

The proposal would improve accessibility within the home for a disabled family member with specific health conditions, to which the appellant has referred. By providing a larger kitchen and a ground floor wet room with appropriate circulation space and bathing facilities particularly for a wheelchair user, the proposal would better meet the daily living and care arrangements of this family member than the current arrangements.

I have had due regard to the requirements of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The objective of improving accessibility and living conditions for a disabled person attracts significant weight in favour of the proposal. However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the identified needs could only be met in the manner proposed. [name] attach significant weight to the personal circumstances advanced, they do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. I have carefully considered whether material considerations, including the personal circumstances put forward and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Although the accessibility benefits carry significant weight, they do not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace and the street scene. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.