Appeal 6003764

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the area, particularly in relation to the conservation area • living conditions of future occupiers in terms of outlook.

The site forms an area of flat roof on a single storey projection to the rear of [site address] . An area close to the main building is sectioned off by a fence around an existing external amenity space. The roof can be accessed via an external staircase leading up from a yard containing bins and cycle storage. There is a narrow alley leading from the yard to [address]. Terraced buildings between two and three storeys in height line [address] to the north of the site, [address] to the east and [address] to the south. These terraces wrap around the area to the rear of the terraced buildings, yet there is a sense of openness that is reinforced by a high level of sky exposure. In contrast to the busy streets beyond, this space is quiet. Many of the buildings in the immediate area have rear projections. Although these are of various styles, forms and scales, the rooflines create a stepped appearance. Mature vegetation is a notable feature of this area.

The site forms part of the [address] Conservation Area and is also located within Chipping Barnet Town Centre in a [name]. Adjacent to the site, on the corner of [address] and [address], is a [name] that is locally listed. The site itself has limited visibility from the wider public realm but is visible from the rear of the many properties in the immediate area.

The proposed development comprises an upward extension to part of a single storey projection to the rear of [site address] to provide a studio flat with a flat green roof. The flat would have a separate access and would be situated at the end of the projection furthest from the main building without connecting internal areas or corridors. An external staircase and walkway along the roof would provide access.

I note the range in the appearance of the rear projections along this stretch of buildings on the [address]. In the main, however, the built form has a stepped appearance, with the rooflines stepping down from the main terrace. The buildings appear to have been subject to alteration and extension over time. Conversely, the appearance of the proposed flat would not step down from the main building but would appear separate to the main building at first floor level, introducing a discordant addition to the projection. The design of the proposed development appears to acknowledge a gap in the buildings along [address] by avoiding the introduction of built form into that gap (although proposed railings would be visible). However, from the rear-facing windows and external areas of neighbouring properties, the proposal would introduce a contrived roofline to the building.

In relation to effects on character and appearance, I have considered other schemes identified by the appellant in their appeal statement. Firstly, the scheme at [address] proposed alterations to the building that included the creation of a flat. This scheme proposed the extension of existing built form at first floor level. The property appeared already to have a projection that extended significantly to the rear and already had upper storey elements, which the scheme builds out from. In contrast, the appeal scheme does not acknowledge the stepped appearance of rooflines that are distinctive here.

Notably, the scheme at [address] proposed built form that extended an existing upper storey element of the building. The orientation is different also, which means that although fences were included at first floor level, the position of these responds to the steps down from the host building. Whereas, the appeal scheme has the opposite layout, which places the amenity space and fences around it in between the proposed flat and the host building. This approach does not reflect the built form that is visible from the site.

Both 83 and [address] are visible from the appeal site. However, for the reasons previously set out, I consider both schemes to have limited comparability in terms of character and appearance. The appellant’s appeal statement also identifies a scheme at [address]. This scheme introduces an upper storey element that would not connect to existing upper storeys in a similar way to the appeal scheme. However, the host building and site context is materially different. The flat would be less prominent for a number of reasons including that it would be on the roof of a higher building than the appeal scheme. As such, comparability with this scheme is also limited.

In addition, the form and layout of the appeal scheme would result in the creation of a principal access to the flat that would be separate to that of the host building. Whether accessed using the external staircase from the yard or from the front of the main building and along the rooftop walkway, the location of the front door of the proposed flat is not legible within the wider pattern of development.

Overall, the appearance of the proposed development itself does not deliver high quality design and fails to reflect the appearance of the wider area. The proposed development does not respond sensitively or positively to the distinctive local character and design, building form or patterns of development. Nor does the proposed development complement the appearance of the host building or incorporate a roof profile/form that is sympathetic to the host building or adjacent buildings. As such, the proposed development would harm the appearance of the host building and wider area. It is, therefore, contrary to Barnet Local Plan 2025 (BLP) Policies CDH01 and CDH05 and London Plan 2021 (LP) Policy D3.

BLP Policy CDH08 requires that heritage assets are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance and that special attention will be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas when assessing development proposals.

At paragraph 6.1, the [address] Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement 2007 identifies key characteristics of this part of the Conservation Area. It states that, “[address] is a wide street with well-defined and continuous building line...buildings are elongated and stretch back deeply into each plot”. This is consistent with the appearance of the appeal site and a number of properties along this stretch of the [address]. The elongated buildings are central to the character and appearance of the site and area to the rear of the aforementioned properties.

The location of the site to the rear of buildings in the Conservation Area will mitigate views from the street scene. However the site is visible, and indeed prominently so, from the rear of many properties along [address] and [address] as well as some on [address]. As such, development on the site could have an effect on the significance of the Conservation Area.

I note that the windows and doors proposed are in the casement style and materials matching the existing building are proposed. These design choices appear to reflect those present within the wider Conservation Area.

Notwithstanding, the manner in which the proposed development would further extend the rear projection – notably by way of an upwards extension to the rear of the existing projection – would not sufficiently respect, enhance or utilise features that contribute towards the local character and would be out of keeping with the pattern and layout of development that informs the character of the Conservation Area at this location.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “great weight” should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. The discordant shape in the rear projection the proposed development would create hinders an appearance of elongation. Subsequently, it would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, there is not substantive evidence before me to suggest there would be public benefits to the proposed development that could outweigh the harm. As such, the balance set out at NPPF paragraph 215 weighs against the appeal.

Consequently, the proposed development would fail to conserve the significance of the Conservation Area or have regard to local historic character by way of appearance, pattern of development and layout. Resultantly, the proposed development conflicts with BLP Policy CDH08 and LP Policy D3.

One window is proposed on the west elevation that would look out onto a blank wall that would limit outlook. Outlook would also be restricted to one side due to the proximity of the rear wall of [address], [address]. The obscure glazed window next to the front door (facing south) would provide no outlook. Two sets of glazed double doors leading out onto the outdoor amenity space would provide limited outlook due to the proximity of the rear fence shared with another flat and because of the bulk of the terraced buildings along [address] beyond. Outlook from this position would be further compromised by the rear projection at [address], which would add to a sense of enclosure.

The proposed development includes external amenity space that would exceed the minimum required by LP Policy D6. The appellant’s appeal statement highlights a previously approved scheme at [address] that included smaller amenity spaces to accompany larger new dwellings than the flat proposed in this appeal. I have considered this other scheme; however, the orientation of the dwellings differs and due to their two storey height, there would be opportunities for a variety of outlooks across the two floors. As this appeal includes a single storey flat, opportunities for outlook would be restricted to the same storey. This other scheme is not so similar as to represent a compelling reason to allow the appeal.

As mentioned previously, the proposed scheme at [address] included amenity space at first floor level, enclosed by fences. However, the orientation of the amenity space in the [address] scheme would provide occupiers with sky exposure from both rear-facing windows and the amenity space. Additionally, the scheme at [address] proposed windows to three of the four elevations and included a balcony facing out onto an open space. In terms of outlook, and in contrast to these two proposals, the appeal scheme would have reduced sky exposure, a more significant sense of enclosure and more limited outlook.

Consequently, the proposal would not provide the high quality design required to allow for an acceptable or appropriate level of outlook for future occupiers of the flat. It follows, therefore, that the proposed development is in conflict with [name] CDH01 and CDH05 as well as [name] D3 and D6.

Various concerns were raised by interested parties in relation to building work at the property, access, highway matters and refuse collection. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not discussed these details.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the NPPF, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.