Appeal 6003510

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.

The appeal property is mainly a 2-storey chalet-style detached dwelling that lies within a predominantly residential area wherein buildings vary in their age, style, size and general appearance. Consequently, there is variety in the built form within the street scene and the local area to which No 38 belongs. The site is not located within a conservation area, nor is the appeal dwelling statutorily or locally listed.

The existing appeal property, although altered through a sizeable rear roof extension, retains a legible chalet-style form. In particular, the main roof, which contains the first-floor accommodation, is a distinctive feature of the existing building, with a stepped ridgeline, a relatively long slope facing the road and a subordinate front gable.

The proposal is primarily to introduce a 2-storey side and rear extension beneath a new pitched roof with external materials to match those of the existing dwelling. It would result in a deep sidewall, extending beyond the existing rear elevation, and a larger roof with the upper sections projecting noticeably above the main house.

The size of the proposal relative to the host building could not reasonably be described as a subordinate addition, which is a requirement of extensions under Policy CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021–2036 (BLP). The Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) reiterates this requirement and adds that extensions should be consistent with the form, scale and architectural style of the original building.

In combination, the scale and prominence of the side and rear extension would be so great as to overwhelm the proportions and distinctive chalet-style of the existing dwelling, to the detriment of its established form and character. From the road, the appeal scheme would draw the eye as an overly large and unsympathetic addition, even when seen among the varied built form that is evident along [address].

The appellant contends that the street exhibits an eclectic character which includes properties that have large extensions that are visible from the road, which I saw during the site visit. Reference is also made to an appeal decision at [address] to the rear of the site, in which the appellant considers that the Inspector came to a similar conclusion. However, a variation in built form and the presence of other sizeable extensions within the local area does not equate to an absence of character. Furthermore, it does not negate the requirements of Policy D1 of the London Plan (TLP) and [name] CDH01 and CDH05 for development to respond positively to its context and for extensions to be respectful of the existing building form, scale and roof structure.

The appellant argues that the appeal dwelling lacks intrinsic architectural merit, and that the proposal would improve its appearance and represent a logical evolution of the dwelling within a generous plot. However, the relevant policy tests are whether the new addition would respect or enhance the character of the host building and be readily assimilated into its context. The absence of heritage designation or an architectural distinction does not remove the requirement for sympathetic and proportionate design.

On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would appear as a dominant and disproportionate addition that fails to respect the form, proportions and character of the host dwelling. The resultant harm would be significant given the extent to which the original chalet style would be undermined. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building and discordant within the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with [name] D1 and D3, [name] CDH01 and CDH05 and the advice within the Council’s SPD. Together, these policies and guidance promote high quality design and require extensions to complement the character of the host building and the local area.

Once complete, the enlarged house would provide valuable additional accommodation for the appellant’s growing family. The proposal would modernise the property and make efficient use of the space available within the plot. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. The absence of objections or harm to the living conditions of others does not in itself demonstrate that the appeal scheme is therefore acceptable.

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.