Appeal 6003829

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Barnet, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3499/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

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

The external materials used on the extension hereby permitted shall match the texture and colour of those used on the existing dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL-002, PL-008, PL-009, PL-010, PL-011, PL-012, PL-013.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In their appeal submission, the appellant refers to the original application as having been made as a prior notification under permitted development rights. However, the application form submitted is for a householder application for planning permission and this is the basis on which the original application and this appeal have been assessed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupants of 94 and [address], with particular regard to outlook; Appeal Planning Officer 6003829 • the character and appearance of the area, including the Watling Estate Conservation Area (WECA); and • the personal circumstances of the occupants of the appeal site.

The first of the appeal property’s adjacent neighbours, No 94, has a central ground floor window on its rear elevation that serves the property’s kitchen. Whilst the existing outlook from this window is considerably restricted in the direction of the appeal site by the presence of a tall wooden fence along their shared boundary, the window is afforded a clear outlook down the property’s own rear garden.

The existing situation at No 98, the appeal site’s other terraced neighbour, is similar. Here, the closest window sits directly adjacent to the appeal property and, because it serves the mid-level landing of the staircase, sits higher than a standard ground floor window. Although the existing outlook in the direction of the appeal site is moderately restricted by the dense, sprawling hedging and wooden fence that run along the shared boundary, the window benefits from an unrestricted outlook down the garden of No 98.

The proposed development would extend to the side boundaries of the site. The height of the proposed development would be greater than the height of existing features along the shared boundaries. It would extend to a significant depth that would far exceed the dimension of 3m set out as normally accepted for extensions to terraced properties in the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (October 2016) (the SPD). In combination, these factors would result in the proposed extension featuring considerably in the outlook from both of the closest neighbouring windows.

However, the windows of Nos 94 and 98 both serve non-habitable spaces, which are unlikely to be used as frequently or for as significant a length of time as habitable spaces. Furthermore, the existing outlook from the windows of Nos 94 and [address] would remain. For these reasons, it is unlikely that the proposed development would significantly change the way the occupants use either internal space. Furthermore, the outlook from their gardens towards the dwellings would still be dominated by the built form of the terrace, and the length and size of those gardens would mean that the proposal would not be unduly prominent.

Consequently, the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Nos 94 and 98, as it would provide for an acceptable level of outlook. It therefore accords with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (March 2025) and Policy D3 of The London Plan (March 2021), in so far as they expect development proposals to allow for appropriate, acceptable outlook for adjoining occupants.

Although deeper than recommended in the SPD, the development would nevertheless comply with the aims of that guidance, which seek to ensure extensions do not result in harmful loss of outlook from adjoining properties. Appeal Planning Officer 6003829

As the Watling Estate Conservation Area Character [name] (July

identifies, the WECA derives considerable significance from its layout as a Garden City suburb. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, this includes the shared scale and form of dwellings within the residential character area, which are described to be approximately as deep as they are high. Although there are several examples in the WECA where rear extensions have been constructed, these are generally single-storey and of a modest depth. In some instances, the layout of residential streets offers glimpsed views of the rear elevation of dwellings, enabling the consistency of these buildings to be appreciated.

The appeal property is a modest, mid-terraced dwelling largely consistent in scale and form with other properties both along the terraced row and in the WECA more widely. For these reasons, it makes a positive contribution to the significance of the WECA, both as an individual property and as part of the wider terrace.

As a result of its significant depth, the proposed development would be an uncharacteristically large, bulky extension out of proportion with the modest dwelling and would disrupt the largely consistent terraced row. Whilst the rear of the property is screened from view from the public realm, it can be seen from terraced neighbours and their gardens. Due to the height of the proposal, it would be clearly visible from neighbouring properties above the dividing boundary features. Consequently, despite the absence of public views, the scale and siting of the proposal would harm the character and appearance of this terrace and its contribution to the wider area.

In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets. For the reasons above, the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area as a whole and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the heritage asset. However, due to the proposed development’s limited area of visual impact, this harm would be at the lower end of the scale. Nevertheless, I afford this harm significant weight.

In such circumstances, paragraph 208 of the Framework states that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. However, there are no public benefits associated with the proposal that have been put forward by the appellant that would outweigh the identified harm.

Therefore, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the WECA. Consequently, it would fail to comply with Policies CDH01, CDH05 and CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 and Policy D3 of The London Plan, insofar as they expect the design of development proposals to be of high quality and complement the existing character of the area.

The proposed development would also fail to accord with the SPD, insofar as it expects extensions to have regard to the character of the area.

The appellant has provided information identifying that there is a current occupant of the appeal property living with disabilities. Accordingly, in my assessment of this Appeal Planning Officer 6003829 aspect of the appeal I am mindful of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) arising from section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 (the Act). The Act requires me to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

The appellant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the disabilities have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. I have also been provided with detail on how the current configuration of the appeal property is unsuited to the requirements of this individual and the substantial difficulties it causes them.

The appellant has provided an explanation of the clear and immediate benefits that the scale and layout of development as proposed would bring to the individual concerned and to the wider family in relation to their care. The additional ground floor space proposed as part of the scheme would enable the individual to more easily navigate around the house and have access to a bathroom on the ground floor, resulting in a considerable improvement in their ability to live in the property and reducing the existing negative consequences of their long-term disabilities.

I have not been made aware of whether any alternative designs have been considered which may be more sympathetic to the WECA. However, given the constraints of the narrow site and the amount of evidence I have about the individual’s needs I am not convinced that there would be a less harmful option available that would provide equivalent benefits. For these reasons, the personal circumstances of the occupants of the appeal site are a matter which I afford considerable weight.

[name] have found no significant adverse effect in relation to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, I have identified that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the WECA. I attribute this harm, and the resulting policy conflict, significant weight.

Nevertheless, the significant benefits that the proposed development would create for a disabled individual are a matter of considerable weight. Therefore, on balance, I am satisfied that this material consideration is sufficient to outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan and tip the balance in favour of the grant of planning permission.

I recommend conditions for commencement and for development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interest of providing certainty. Furthermore, I recommend a condition requiring the use of matching materials to those of the existing dwelling, adjusted in recognition of the proposed change in style of render, to mitigate the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the WECA. I have amended the wording of these conditions from those suggested by the Council to ensure they meet the relevant tests.

The Council has recommended a condition to restrict the flat roof areas of the development from being converted to or used as a balcony, roof garden or similar Appeal Planning Officer 6003829 amenity or sitting out area to ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties are not prejudiced by overlooking. However, it is unlikely that the flat roof would be used for these purposes, as there would be no easy access from the first floor of the building and the central location of the proposed roof light would significantly restrict the available space for sitting and standing. Furthermore, converting the use of the flat roof to a sitting out area would generally require a separate grant of planning permission, given it would need a railing to comply with the Building Regulations. Therefore, the condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.