Appeal 6001976

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area; and on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.

[address] is a predominantly residential street characterised by 2-storey detached and semi-detached buildings of varying size, age and architectural style. While many properties have been altered or extended, this road retains a discernible pattern of development in which neighbouring buildings are separated by notable gaps and their roof forms remain legible within the local street scene.

The appeal property forms part of a semi-detached pair. The proposal includes a new first-floor side extension above an existing single-storey side projection. Although the new addition would be less than half the width of the host dwelling, the submitted plans show that it would be set back only modestly from the principal elevation facing the road and set down only slightly from the main ridge.

Policy CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (LP) states that the Council will support extensions that are subordinate to the existing building. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) reiterates this policy requirement. The SPD explains that subordination can usually be achieved by stepping down the roof line and setting back the front building line.

The appellant emphasises that the adjoining property at No 94 includes a 2-storey side extension and argues that the proposal would, in effect, mirror this relationship. I acknowledge that No 94 has been extended and that its side addition includes a limited setback from the main front wall. However, the roof of that existing side extension is noticeably set down from the main ridge and the eaves of the host dwelling, which allows it to read clearly as a secondary addition.

In contrast, the modest setback and ridge height reduction would result in a side extension that would appear visually as a continuation of the dwelling’s 2-storey mass and roof form. When viewed from the road, the additional 2-storey width of the front elevation would also reduce the perceived gap between Nos 94 and 96 to the extent that these adjacent pairs would appear uncomfortably close together. Therefore, despite the appellant’s intention to reflect the neighbouring side extension, the proposal would not achieve the same degree of visual subordination to the host dwelling nor retain a meaningful gap between buildings as it would be perceived in the streetscape. Consequently, the proposed extension would detract from the established pattern of development along this part of [address].

At the rear of the appeal property, the proposal is to introduce a terrace and veranda with balustrades beyond the back walls of the dwelling. Due to the difference in local ground levels, these elements would occupy a slightly elevated position relative to the rear gardens of both Nos 94 and 96. Even taking the existing boundary fencing and vegetation into account, the proposed terrace and veranda would introduce sizeable, elevated features that would extend well beyond the established rear building line of the host dwelling.

The appellant notes that the new canopy would be constructed from lightweight materials. While the materials used can influence the visual impact of a development, the main effect is determined primarily by its scale, projection and relationship with the host building and the surrounding space. In this case, the combined scale, depth and raised position of the terrace and veranda would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive addition that would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling. This effect would be most apparent when viewed from the rear of the site. As the only obvious example of development with these characteristics along this section of [address], the new rear terrace and veranda would appear incongruous within the local area

On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy D3 of The London Plan and [name] CDH01 and CDH05. These policies promote high quality design and aim to ensure that extensions complement the host building and the townscape. It would also fail to accord with the Council’s SPD, which provides supporting design guidance.

The proposed raised terrace and veranda would extend well beyond the rear of No [address] to the shared boundary with the site. To avoid potential overlooking, it is likely that a tall fence or a similar feature would be required along the common boundary between Nos 94 and No 96.

As shown in the photographs provided, existing boundary vegetation and a fence provide an effective screen to prevent views between the rears of Nos 94 and 96. However, planting cannot be relied upon as a permanent form of mitigation or to visually soften built form as vegetation may be cut back or removed at any time.

The combination of the raised terrace, the veranda structure and the likely need for tall fencing would introduce a substantial built presence close to the boundary with No 94. From the rear garden and rear-facing windows of No 94, views of these features are likely to be from close range.

While some degree of enclosure is characteristic of residential gardens in suburban areas such as this, the scale and proximity of the proposed structures would result in a more confined and oppressive relationship between these two properties. The proposed development would therefore give rise to an undue sense of enclosure and a harmful loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 94.

The appellant states that the occupier of No 94 does not object to the proposal and has provided a letter of support. While the views of neighbours are a material consideration, my assessment takes into account future as well as the current occupiers of this adjacent property. That others do not object does not in itself demonstrate that the proposal would therefore be acceptable in planning terms.

The appellant also indicates that additional fencing or planting could be used to mitigate impacts. However, increased boundary screening would itself contribute to a heightened sense of enclosure.

On the second main issue, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 94. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy D3 of The London Plan, [name] CDH01 and CDH05 and the Council’s SPD insofar as they seek to safeguard the residential amenity.

The proposal would provide additional accommodation for the appellant’s family and would make use of the available space within the plot. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The appellant indicates a willingness to amend elements of the appeal scheme, notably in relation to the veranda canopy, boundary fence or the roof form. However, the appeal must be determined based on the proposal that was submitted to and considered by the Council. Any materially different scheme would need to be considered through a fresh planning application.

The appellant is critical of the Council’s handling of the application and the time taken to consider the proposal, with an exchange of correspondence provided. [name] have noted these concerns, my remit is solely to determine the appeal on its planning merits, which I have done.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including those of the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.