Appeal 6002540

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:  the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and  the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regards to outlook.

The appeal site is a two-storey semi-detached property which has been subdivided into 4 one-bedroom flats. The property has off road parking to the front and a large rear garden which backs onto a railway line. The front of the building has a centrally positioned door with canopy, a bay window to one side and large window with three vertical sections to the other. The property retains its traditional appearance including sash windows and decorative ridge tiles. Although there is a modern block of flats opposite the site, traditional semi-detached dwellings of similar style to the appeal property form the prevailing character. The dwellings are set out in a regular, spacious pattern which together with the consistent architectural detailing provides a uniform appearance to the street scene.

The proposal includes the creation of a new basement level and a full height lightwell to the front of the building, which would mirror the design of the existing bay window. The lightwell would project approximately 1.5m from the front of the bay window and therefore would occupy a significant proportion of the front garden space. Although the submitted plans show that the area to the front of the lightwell would be landscaped, its forward projection into the garden, combined with the curved building line along the street means that this planting would provide limited screening. As lightwells do not form part of the established character of the area, the proposal would be an incongruous addition which would detract from the uniform appearance of the street scene.

The rear of the property has been extended through modest single storey additions and the rear garden subdivided along its centre. The adjoining property of No. 51 has a large single storey rear extension which runs across its entire width and a dormer extension across much of its roof span. To the other side, No. 47 also has a large dormer extension. Nevertheless, chimney stacks and dividing walls at the roofline have been retained and the eaves heights remain broadly consistent. As a result, the traditional roof pattern and uniform eaves level make an important contribution to the local character.

The proposed rear extension would run across the whole width of the property, with separate elements being stepped back from the side elevations but protruding further in depth. This would result in a staggered arrangement of the roof at eaves level which would be set at a lower height to the adjoining properties. This arrangement would have a cluttered appearance and disrupt the consistent pattern of eaves lines along the street. Despite the stepped back arrangement of some elements, cumulatively the bulk and massing of the rear extensions would visually dominate the rear of the host property. The overall scale of the proposal and the changes to the eaves level would appear discordant alongside the well-balanced proportions of neighbouring properties and disrupt the uniform appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area and thereby conflicts with Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025). These policies amongst other things seek to ensure extensions to any building complement the character of the existing property, particularly in terms of style, form and materials and incorporate a roof profile sympathetic to the existing property.

The rear elevation of No. 47 has two windows, which are positioned between its lean-to extension and the boundary of the appeal site. It is not clear from the submitted information whether these windows serve habitable rooms. The proposed rear extensions would project significantly above the fence line with No. 47. Therefore, given the close relationship of No. 47 to the boundary combined with its orientation towards the appeal site, the height and depth of the proposed extension would materially increase the sense of enclosure of these rooms. This would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of residents with regards to outlook.

The adjoining property No. 51 has a large window at first floor level, which appears to serve a habitable room. This building is set at an angle towards the host property, as it follows the curve of [address]. The proposed rear extension would extend approximately1.3m beyond the rear elevation of the host property which would be in proximity to this window. Although the projection of the extension’s side wall would diminish the current outlook towards the appeal site, due to the limited extent of its protrusion and height, I do not consider that this would give rise to an unacceptable degree of harm to the living conditions of occupants with regards to outlook.

For the reasons outlined above I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of residents with regards to outlook. It thereby conflicts with Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan which amongst other things seek to ensure that new development provides a good standard of amenity and allows for acceptable levels of outlook for adjoining and nearby users impacted by the development.

The Council granted planning permission under [name]. 26/0125/FUL for alterations to the property. This scheme differs from the appeal proposal in that it does not include the front lightwell, retains a regular roofline to the rear, with rear extensions being smaller in scale. Therefore, the fallback position is a different scheme that in my judgement would be less harmful than the appeal proposal.

The proposal would create one additional dwelling, which would make a minor contribution to the local housing supply and improve the space standards in comparison to the existing provision. However, it would harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area and the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 47 with regards to outlook. These harms are not outweighed by the benefits which I have identified and are sufficient to justify dismissing the appeal.

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.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.