Appeal 6004662

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed development was described on the planning application form as “Change of Flat entrance to front following replacement of window to Door in front (Retrospective)”. The description in the banner heading above is based on that used on the decision notice issued by the Council and subsequently adopted by the appellant during the appeal, though I have omitted the word “retrospective” as it is not in itself descriptive of development. Nevertheless, the development for which planning permission is sought has been carried out, and I was able to see it in place during my site visit.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey semi-detached property on the western side of [address], a long residential street. It was originally a single dwellinghouse but has subsequently been converted into two self-contained flats – No 119 is the upper flat. The property is essentially of the same original design and style as a great many others in the street – especially in its northern half – which have two-storey gabled bays, a recessed front door, and a side window to the outer end of the ground floor. While some properties have been altered over the years, the consistency of scale, form and, for the appeal property and others of its type, design, make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

The Council’s 2016 Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (“the SPD”) provides guidance in respect of a range of residential developments, including where existing dwellings are converted into flats. Among other things, it advises that a good conversion should result in the minimum alteration to the external appearance of the house, and in particular that “the insertion of an additional front door tends to unbalance the appearance of the house”.

In this case, a second doorway has replaced the side window at the outer end of the front elevation. As it has been fitted into the width of an existing window opening, it is narrower than the original, and the proportions and rhythm of the front elevation have therefore been disrupted. There is a porch canopy over the original doorway which, judging by its appearance, is an original feature – it matches others found on some, though not all, neighbouring properties – but, as this does not extend across the new doorway, it also means that the entranceway to the flats has an inharmonious and incongruous appearance. The alterations have led to the front of the semi-detached pair (with No 121) taking on an unbalanced appearance, and set them at odds with their neighbours which, for the most part, retain a single front doorway with side window.

I saw during my site visit that a small number of other properties on [address] had had a second front door installed, including at No 123, very close to the appeal property, and at No [address] further north along the street. To my mind, those examples provided illustrations of the harm which can arise from unsympathetic conversions and which the advice of the SPD seeks to ensure is avoided. I acknowledge that the work which has been carried out at the appeal property appears to have been done with considerably more skill and care than at those other addresses, but that does not mitigate the unbalancing effects and other harm I have found.

The appellant also drew my attention to examples of porches and other alterations to front elevations elsewhere on [address]. I do not know the precise details of how (or if) all the alterations to the frontages gained (or required) planning consent; in particular though, some of the porches I saw (not specifically those identified in the appellant’s evidence) ranged from moderately to shockingly unsympathetic in terms of their impacts on their host buildings and the wider streetscene.

Furthermore, (as the appellant pointed out) while there is indeed some considerable diversity in frontages along [address], the appeal property is of a particular type which, as I have described above, generally retains several distinctive features. As such, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area which has been undermined by the insertion of an additional doorway. The various porches and other alterations nearby do not provide a strong justification for allowing further harm.

The development has not altered the building line or overall scale of development on the plot, so in these respects the property remains in keeping with its neighbours. The materials are also appropriate. However, that the development may be acceptable in these respects does not mitigate the harmful unbalancing effects of the design and layout which I have found.

I therefore conclude that the development has caused unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it conflicts with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the 2025 Barnet Local Plan, and Policy D3 of the London Plan

Together, and among other things, those policies seek to ensure that all development responds sensitively to distinctive local character and design, and that extensions and alterations complement the character of the existing building and streetscene.

There appears to be no dispute between the main parties that the use of No 119 as two self-contained flats is lawful. The use is not at issue in this appeal, which is concerned solely with the matters of character and appearance I have addressed above.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.