Appeal 6005317

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), development is permitted for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats, subject to specific limitations and conditions, alongside a requirement that the applicant applies for the prior approval of the Council in relation to these conditions. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would comply with the limitations in paragraph A.1 (a) to (o) of the GPDO, in addition to the conditions set out in A.2 (1) (a) to (1) (d) and (1) (f) to (1) (j). From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. The sole area of dispute relates to the prior approval matter in paragraph A.2 (e) of the GPDO.

Whilst not determinative, I have had regard to the policies of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) in so far as they are a material consideration where relevant to the main issue of the appeal. The procedure for applications for prior approval under Part 20, B (15) (b) requires that, when determining an application, regard must be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the building.

The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential area comprising dwelling houses and flatted developments. Although there is some variation in the design and scale of properties, the area is generally defined by two and three storey buildings, with many period properties displaying coherent and attractive arts and crafts style architectural detailing. This prevailing pattern establishes a consistent rhythm and contributes positively to the established character and visual interest of the locality.

The appeal property relates to a detached three-storey flatted development positioned between a short run of two-storey period properties with loft conversions. These include adjoining semi-detached dwelling houses and the presbytery associated with the [name] listed building known as the [name] of [name] the Confessor (LB).

The LB is a substantial brick-built building in a [name] style, dominated by a square lantern tower with chequerwork embellishments. Moreover, the significance and special interest of the LB as a designated heritage asset is drawn, in-part, from its age, historic fabric and eclectic architectural interest. At my site visit, I observed the valuable contribution that the LB’s aesthetic and architectural significance makes to the locality. The LB forms a distinctive landmark near the junction of [site address] and [address], standing significantly taller than neighbouring properties and the prevailing height of development in the area.

The GPDO allows for additional storeys on detached blocks of flats in principle, however this is subject to prior approval first being given, including in relation to the external appearance of the building. The existence of the prior approval process demonstrates that consideration is needed of the scale and design of such schemes in context and indicates the Government’s intention to permit such changes only where they do not result in undue harm to the character of the surrounding area.

The proposed additional storey at the appeal property would incorporate matching materials and fenestration to the existing building, and the pitched roof design would largely assimilate with the roofscape form of immediately adjoining properties. Nevertheless, the appeal property is already substantially taller than its immediate residential neighbouring properties, including the adjacent presbytery of the LB.

By increasing the height further through an additional storey, the proposal would appear excessive in scale, creating an imbalance within its immediate context of attractive period properties and the LB, and disrupting their established scale and appearance. The eye would be unacceptably drawn to the resulting four-storey building, which would conflict with the setting of the LB due to its close siting and excessive height in this sensitive location. This would be particularly evident in views looking south along [site address] towards the appeal site, including from the junction of [site address] and [address], where the additional height and resultant bulk of the proposal would reduce views of the LB and thereby lesson the opportunity to appreciate its architectural significance.

I therefore find that the proposed additional storey would result in a conspicuous and discordant feature within the street scene. I also find that the proposal would appear jarring and of an excessive scale when viewed to the rear of the site, within the context of [address], which largely consists of two storey dwelling houses. At my site visit, I observed that the bulk and mass of the existing three storey appeal property already detrimentally dominates the street scene at present.

It is acknowledged that the proposal seeks to address an earlier upward extension scheme, which was refused by the Council1 and later dismissed at appeal2. However, although the appeal proposal incorporates a redesigned pitched roof form, the development constitutes a vertical addition to the building through the creation of an additional storey. This would appear unbalanced and overly prominent within its sensitive context. Moreover, a pitched roof form design does not overcome or mitigate the harm that I have identified.

I therefore find that the proposal would harm the external appearance of the building and undermine the established character of the area, causing harm to the setting of the LB. Given its relatively modest scale, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the setting of the designated heritage asset. Where prior approval matters include external appearance considerations, the impact of a development on the setting of a listed building will need to be addressed, applying the tests set out in paragraph 215 of the Framework.

Public benefits are claimed by the appellant whereby the proposal would add an additional residential unit to the local housing stock, in an area with good access to public transport, alongside the use of an existing residential building with its associated services. There are additionally limited economic benefits arising from construction. However, any such benefit would be countered and, in my judgment, comfortably exceeded by the harm that I have identified to the significance of the LB. In addition, I have been provided with insufficient information to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal could not be provided in a less harmful way and/ or in a less sensitive location. I therefore find that the scheme’s public benefits, when considered in cumulative terms, attract limited weight that would not outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified to the setting of the designated

Whilst the proposal does not increase the height of the existing building by the maximum permitted by the GPDO, for the reasons set out above, the increased height would create significant visual intrusion within the area. Chapter 12 of the Framework sets out that the creation of high-quality buildings is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve, and that development should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment. I have found that the proposal would have a harmful visual impact, and it would therefore fail to meet these requirements.

Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the external appearance of the building and would not comply with the Framework policies in relation to this prior approval matter, A.2 (e) of the GPDO. Although not determinative, in so far as it is material to the prior approval matter, I have had regard to the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016), which sets out that extensions should respect the original building and should not be overly dominant, where I find that the proposal does not accord with this guidance. In so far as it is a 1 Application reference: 22/1702/PNV. 2 Appeal reference: APP/N5090/W/22/3300233. material consideration, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CDH01 of the BLP which seeks to promote high quality design which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, and height of the existing context.

In so far as the development plan policies are a material consideration, the proposal would also conflict with Policy CDH05 of the BLP which requires extensions to be subordinate to the existing building in terms of size, scale and/ or height. Additionally, in so far as it is a material consideration, it would be contrary to Policy CDH08 of the BLP which requires special regard to be given to the desirability of the setting of listed buildings, where any harm to the significance of listed buildings will require clear and convincing justification.

Furthermore, whilst not determinative, in so far as the policies are a material consideration to the prior approval matter, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) which amongst other matters requires development proposals to enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions; and to respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

In so far as it is a material consideration, the proposal would also conflict with Policy HC1 of the LP where development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings.

The appellant refers to inconsistency in decision making and draws my attention to 1 to 6 [name] Court3 where it is stated that prior approval was required and allowed for an upward extension. However, I have not been provided with full details of this scheme, including the proposed plans or the Council’s decision notice. From observations at my site visit, I note that the building is located further from the LB than the appeal property and does not share the same sensitive site context, where it is positioned at the junction of [site address] with [address]. Consequently, this example does not overcome or justify the harm that I have identified.

Furthermore, the appellant also references a decision at 698 [site address] , which was allowed at appeal following the Council’s refusal of planning permission4. I have not been provided with full details of this example and note that the proposal relates to an application for planning permission, where the submission predates the adoption of the current BLP. Furthermore, this property does not form part of the immediate site context of the appeal site, where it is experienced within the setting of the junction at [site address] and [address]. Moreover, the above example does not alter my findings. 3 Application reference: 24/1449/PNV. 4 Application reference: 20/4194/FUL.

While there are other examples of taller buildings within the locality, and it is acknowledged that the building is neither listed nor located within a designated conservation area nor subject to an Article 4 Direction, this does not overcome or justify the harm that I have identified arising from the proposal in this sensitive location for the reasons set out above.

I have considered the appellant’s commentary regarding the increase in height being less than one metre when viewed in relation to ‘the natural slope of the road’. However, this does not address the harm I have identified from the substantial increase in height that would result from the addition of a further storey of development to the appeal property, which would be visibly prominent and discordant within the locality.

Representations have been made by interested parties, raising concern on a number of matters, including loss of daylight and sunlight to adjacent properties, parking and highways congestion concern, structural and safety issues with the existing building, alongside concerns with noise and disturbance from construction works. The Council has not raised any concerns with regard to these matters, and based on the evidence before me, including a daylight and sunlight assessment, I have no reason to disagree. I have also not been presented with any technical evidence to lead me to a different conclusion.

Additionally, had I been minded to allow the appeal, any development under Class A of the GPDO is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must provide the Council with a report for the management of the construction of the development, which sets out the proposed development hours of operation and how any adverse impact of noise, dust, vibration and traffic on occupiers of the building and adjoining owners or occupiers will be mitigated. Furthermore, issues regarding structural capacity and management issues with the existing building are not relevant considerations under this prior approval application. I have also been provided details of the Council’s notification to adjoining occupiers, and I am satisfied with the consultation process undertaken. Any consent required from the freeholder of the property would be a private matter between the parties.

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