Appeal 6004505

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear terrace with associated glass balustrade at [site address] , Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3800/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site location plan and drawing numbers RAV_P02L, RAV_P03L (existing section and roof plan), RAV_P04L, RAV_P02M, RAV_P03L (proposed section and roof plan) and RAV_P04M.

Details of the level of obscuration on the Pilkington scale of the glazing on the proposed glass balustrades shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The balustrades shall be installed in accordance with those details and the approved plans prior to the first use of the first floor rear terrace, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

I have taken the description of the proposal from the decision notice rather than the application form, in accordance with the appellants’ agreement to that amended description in an email dated 17 September 2025.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to overlooking of outdoor amenity areas. Appeal Decision: 6004505

The host sits within a small group of two storey properties on the southern side of [address], between [address] and [address]. As noted at paragraph 4.2 of the Council’s statement the upper floor rear faces of these buildings are broadly aligned. However, in other respects their rear elevations have been substantially altered as a result of ground floor extensions and large roof level projections, such that their original two storey hipped roofed outriggers are no longer a significant unifying feature.

The proposed terrace would be located above an existing flat roofed rear extension and would have glass balustrades to both sides and to the rear. Although those balustrades would project further to the rear than any other first floor development in this small group, their visual impact would be significantly tempered by their limited height and set in from the roof edges, and by the use of translucent glass which would give them a lightweight appearance and a very limited bulk.

Thus, whilst I did not observe any similar roof terraces or glazed balustrades on this building or in the vicinity, in the context of the diverse form and appearance of this group, the proposal would not appear incongruous viewed from within the plot and from nearby properties, or from public vantage points including looking along the rear face of the buildings from [address].

For these reasons, the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area. It would not therefore conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (‘LP’), or Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (‘BLP’). Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require high quality design, which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design of the area, having regard to matters including form, scale, massing, height and materials; and set out that extensions should be subordinate to, and complement, the existing building.

Neither would it conflict with the stance in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) on good design which is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.

Finally, given its dimensions and lightweight design, the scheme would not conflict with the general advice in the Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2016 (‘SPD’) that development should respect the area’s character, and that extensions should be subordinate to the original house and consistent with its form, scale and style.

Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6 of the SPD highlight the importance of ensuring privacy so that residents feel at ease, and paragraph 14.12 continues that flat roofs should not normally be used as balconies due to the nuisance and loss of privacy that may be caused to neighbours. However, it also advises at paragraph 8.[address] may be acceptable alternatives to gardens where they do not result in overlooking which has a negative impact on the privacy of neighbouring residents. Appeal Decision: 6004505

In this case, the balustrades to the sides would extend to a height of 1.[address] and would be set back around 0.5 metre from the roof edge on the boundary with [address] (‘No 27’). [name] 27 has a rear patio, having regard to a typical line of sight, the balustrade’s height, its set back, and its translucent glass would prevent significant views steeply downwards into that space.

I observed that the ground floor flat beneath the host has a very narrow private terrace which projects a short distance to the rear, and which is bordered by metal and timber railings. At around 1.1 metre high the proposed rear balustrade would be lower compared to those to the sides, but it would also be set back further from the roof edge, where it would prevent any overlooking of that terrace.

There would be some limited scope to look steeply down from the roof terrace into the end of the basement flat’s sunken rear garden. However, more typically, persons using the terrace would look straight out from there to more distant views over the upper tier communal garden which is shared by Flats 2 and 3. In the context of a fairly densely developed urban area such as this, where a degree of overlooking is commonplace, those more distant views over a shared garden would not result in a harmfully adverse impact on privacy.

Finally, whilst the Council has provided me with an appeal decision elsewhere1, I have few details of that proposal and its relevance to this scheme has not been explained. I have dealt with this proposal in this location on its planning merits.

For the above reasons, the scheme would not harmfully impact neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions. It would not therefore conflict with those parts of [name] CDH01 and CDH05, or LP Policy D3, which require proposals to deliver a good standard of amenity with an appropriate outlook and privacy, and outdoor environments which are comfortable and inviting for people to use, taking account of changes in land levels; and it would not conflict with the broad thrust of the SPD, or the Framework’s requirement to create places with a high standard of amenity.

I have considered suggested conditions against the Framework’s tests, making minor amendments where necessary in the interests of clarity and precision. As well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, a condition is necessary requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Finally, in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, a condition is necessary requiring the submission of details of the level of obscuration of the glazing for the balustrades, and the implementation of those balustrades prior to the first use of the roof terrace.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, including a representation in support, the appeal is allowed.