Appeal 6002733

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal would extend the existing building to the side and the rear with a part-single, part-double storey extension, and would form a pitched roof over the rear outrigger. The proposal would also introduce a dormer on the side and rear roof slope, however the Council raises no objection to the side and rear dormer. As such, I have considered only the matters in dispute in my findings below.

The main issues are (a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of Flat 2, [site address] , and [address], with specific regard to outlook.

With a mix of uses, pockets of residential, commercial and community buildings line each side of [address]. There are a range of building styles which are of a largely similar scale, with most being between 2 and 4 storeys tall. The appeal site, a 2 storey residential building with accommodation over three floors, fronts [address]. Part of a semi-detached pair of buildings, it currently comprises of 3 flats on the ground floor, and one flat on the first and second floor. Although not identical, No 137 and the appeal site mirror one another, which contributes positively to the character of the area.

The proposal would increase the overall width of the host building at ground floor and first floor level. This additional width is carried into the roof structure, where the ridge is only marginally set down from that of the main building. Given that the existing building largely mirrors No 137, the increased width would unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties. Nos 135 and 137 are the only pair of semi-detached dwellings of this style in the immediate vicinity, therefore the alteration would be particularly noticeable, in the context of the pair’s symmetry, this would harm the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is on the corner of [address] and the building sits away from the side boundary of the plot. As such, the flank elevation of the appeal site is roughly in line with the front elevations of the dwellings fronting [address]. The plot layout, which is largely mirrored by No 133, creates an open entrance to [address], allowing views to the dwellings behind the appeal site.

[name] 135 is different to the dwellings on [address], the additional bulk which would be added to the existing property along the full length of the side elevation would draw the eye and erode the openness around the entrance of [address]. As a result, the relationship between the building line of the flank elevation of the proposal and the front elevations of the dwellings on [address] would be disrupted, harming the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of Barnet’s Local Plan (2025) (Local Plan) and Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), which collectively seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development is complementary and responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design and patterns of development.

The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out in Barnet’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) (SPD), which seeks to ensure that extensions on corner sites do not project beyond the building line of the adjoining road.

No 137 has a number of rear facing windows and a long garden. The height and depth of the existing outrigger at the appeal site is proportional to the distance between the outrigger and No 137. In combination, these factors result in a relatively open outlook for the occupants of No 137 from the rear facing windows.

The proposal would increase the depth of the rear outrigger at ground floor level, and to a slightly lesser extent, at first floor level. The proposal would also introduce a pitched roof which would be taller than the existing flat roof. The increased height together with the increased depth at ground floor and first floor level would create a long flank elevation facing No 137 which would have an overbearing impact on the existing ground floor and first floor rear facing windows of the main building. This would create a sense of enclosure given the relative height and depth compared to the distance between the appeal site and No 137. As such, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the outlook of the occupants of No 137.

Flat 2 is a ground floor flat within the appeal property. It is served by only one window. As such, the existing outlook from this flat is restricted. The increased depth of the outrigger at ground floor and first floor level would create a tunnelling effect, which would harmfully reduce the outlook from Flat 2. A tall fence would be constructed near to the only window serving Flat 2, further reducing the outlook to an unacceptable level.

The appellant asserts that the provision of private amenity space for Flat 2 together with the removal of the ground floor side windows on the existing outrigger would be a benefit that outweighs harm to the outlook of the occupants of Flat 2. However, I do not find that these benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm to outlook of the occupants of Flat 2 that I have identified above.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of both Flat 2, [site address] , and [address], with specific regard to outlook. It would be contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Local Plan and Policy D3 of The London Plan, which collectively seek to ensure that developments provide a good standard of amenity, including allowing for acceptable levels of outlook for adjoining and potential occupants and nearby users impacted by the development.

The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out in the SPD, which states that extensions should not be overbearing, obtrusive or result in harmful loss of outlook from adjoining properties.

As a locally listed building, [address] is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). This status provides no statutory protection. However, Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application.

No [address], which sits on the other side of [address], has a square upwards projection, which is a unique feature amongst the surrounding buildings. The significance of No 133 appears to derive from its architectural interest in addition to the absence of any obvious alterations. The appeal site contributes in a neutral way to the setting and therefore the significance of No 133 in so far as it forms part of the predominantly residential street scape within which No 133 is appreciated.

Given the mix of buildings along [address] which have been altered over the years, including the appeal site, the proposal would not harm the setting and thus the significance of the NDHA. I note the Council raise no concern in this respect either.

Although the proposal would not harm the setting of [address], this does not amount to a benefit that weighs in favour of the appeal proposal.

The appellant has presented a fallback position for a smaller part single, part two storey side and rear extension, with side and rear dormer windows which was approved in May 2024 (Ref: 24/0210/FUL). I am satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that this fallback position would be implemented and that it is relevant and capable of being a material consideration. However, for significant weight to be afforded to a fallback position, there needs not only to be a reasonable prospect of it being carried out, but it would also need to be more harmful than what would be allowed by the scheme for which permission is sought.

The approved scheme largely follows the existing building line at ground floor level, save for a L shaped design towards the rear, which projects further out to the side. At first floor level, the side of the main dwelling would be extended, however the rear outrigger would remain the same. As such, although the approved scheme increases the overall bulk of the dwelling, it would not be to the same extent as the appeal proposal before me and would not unbalance the entrance of [address] in the same way. The fallback position would therefore be less harmful than the appeal scheme in this respect.

Furthermore, the fallback position would not increase the depth of the rear outrigger at ground floor and first floor level to the same extent as the appeal scheme before me. The fallback position would also result in the removal of the ground floor side windows on the existing outrigger, and it would provide a larger area of private amenity space for Flat 2, with the tall fence positioned further from the sole window serving this flat. As such, it would not be as harmful as the appeal scheme to the living conditions of the occupants of No 137 or Flat 2 with particular regard to outlook.

Given these factors, the fallback position would not provide a sufficient justification for allowing the appeal and I give it limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant contends that the proposal would provide good quality housing. While some units may be of a higher quality, given my findings above in respect of the effect on living conditions of the occupants of Flat 2, the quality of housing is not a benefit that weighs in favour of the appeal. It is also noted that the proposal would provide one additional unit which would boost the Council’s supply of self-contained housing. However, this is a limited increase and therefore attracts only limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The absence of harm to highway safety does not amount to a benefit of the scheme.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.