Appeal 6003801

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raising of the ridge height of both adjacent properties by 0.80 metre to facilitate new roof structures, 2 x rear dormer windows and 4no. front facing rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3008/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 202440.P.001, 2023440.P.103 Rev 0, 2023440.P.301 Rev 0, and 202440.P.002 [name].

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The description of development on the application form differs from that on the Council’s Decision Notice and the appellants appeal form. For the avoidance of doubt, I have used the description of development as it appears on the application form in my banner heading and for the determination of the appeal. In my decision, I have removed the reference to the ‘joint application’ and the address within the description of development, as these do not describe acts of development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host buildings and surrounding area.

[address] is a residential street, which gradually rises to [address] North. As such, the buildings, and their rooflines, are stepped up the hill. Most are semi-detached rendered dwellings with hipped roofs, which share broadly consistent design features, scale and massing. Some have been subject to alterations over time, with gabled roofs and front rooflights, or they have been finished with other materials. There is a detached dwelling near to the appeal site which although different, also shares consistent design features, scale and massing.

The appeal site comprises 2 detached dwellings, 40 and [address], which are the last houses before the junction onto [address] North. No 40 and 42 are notably different from the prevailing pattern of development of both [address] and [address] North. Although their porch arrangement differs from one another, they are both gable fronted and finished in dark red brick. The difference in their design and massing is highlighted by their angled siting and their position at the top of the hill near to the junction. Although different, they make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, as they share consistency with the other dwellings in their overall size and scale.

Nos 40 and 42 share a consistent ridge height with one another, as well as the neighbouring dwelling, No 38. The existing roof forms were a key design feature approved under the original planning permission (Red. N00364J) to ensure that Nos 40 and 42 related well to the surrounding street scene, and would be subordinate in scale to No 38. The proposal would raise the ridge heights of both dwellings, altering the roofs from front-facing gables to side-facing gables, adding rear dormer windows and 2 front rooflights to both.

Although the increase in height would lose the subordinate appearance of Nos 40 and 42 compared to No 38, the proposal would result in stepped ridge heights between the appeal site and No 38. This would reflect the stepped ridge heights of the dwellings opposite the appeal site, as well as those at the other end of [address]. As such, the increase in ridge height would be in keeping with the surrounding pattern of development.

Although the proposal would add width at roof level, the alterations to the form and massing of both roofs would be consistent with the surrounding hipped roofs and side-facing gables.

The proposal would retain the differences between the appeal dwellings and the dwellings on the rest of [address], while unifying the roof structures. Overall, the proposal would have a positive effect on the character and appearance of both the host dwellings and surrounding area. It would therefore be in accordance with Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the London Borough of Barnet Local Plan (2025), which collectively seek to ensure that buildings positively respond to local distinctiveness, including responding sensitively to patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context.

The proposal would also be in accordance with the guidance set out in the Barnet Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) and the Barnet Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and Construction (2016), which together aim to promote proposals which take opportunities to improve the character and quality of the area.

Both dwellings have a fallback position. A roof extension including 2 side facing dormers to each side of the roof on [address] was approved subject to conditions in September 2023 (Ref. 23/2672/HSE). [name] 2025, a proposal with the same description of development was approved subject to conditions at [address] (Ref. 25/1185/HSE).

The Council contends that the proposal would be more harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area than the fallback position. [name] have concluded that the appeal proposal would be acceptable with regards to character and appearance, I have not considered it against the fallback position.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have also imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings, to provide certainty. A condition requiring materials to match those used on the existing house is necessary to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the works to be implemented in its entirety at both addresses in conjunction with one another, and completed in full within 9 months of the commencement of the development, to safeguard the character and appearance of both properties and the surrounding area.

Even if the proposal were to be undertaken at only one dwelling, the alterations would not be incongruous given the prevailing pattern of development. I am also mindful that the fallback position at No 40 and No 42 could be implemented independently of one another, which would also result in a similar but acceptable degree of inconsistency between the appearance of the two buildings. As such, I do not find that a condition requiring a time limit for completion would be necessary or reasonable.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.