Appeal 6005925

The appeal is dismissed.

Whilst the application form refers to the site address as [address], it is clear from the site location plan and evidence provided that the appeal site relates to 65 and [address] (Nos 65 and 67).

The appellant has submitted amended plans with this appeal, in addition to a noise impact assessment report and technical information relating to the kitchen extraction system. These have been submitted in response to the Council’s reasons for refusal. Crucially, the plans were not submitted to the Council at the application stage. I cannot be assured that this submission has been reviewed by all parties with an interest in this appeal, including neighbouring occupiers. I have not therefore considered the revised plans in my assessment of this appeal as it may prejudice the Council and any interested parties. However, the Council has commented on the noise impact assessment report and technical information relating to the kitchen extraction system and these relate to the original proposal (front and rear flue). Therefore, I have had regard to the information provided in my

At the time of my site visit, I observed that alterations to the shop front had taken place, with a substantial extension erected to the front of the building, alongside works to the rear of the site. I found that there was a difference with what was built out at the site and the plans considered by the Council, as the proposed front flue was not installed. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the plans on which the Council determined the planning application.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to the visual effect of signage on the front of the extension. However, advertisements are covered under separate regulations and do not require planning permission. As such, I have not considered the signage in my assessment.

There is no dispute regarding the storage areas to the rear of the appeal site and from the evidence provided, in addition to my observations at the site visit, I have no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers, with particular regard to odour and noise from the proposed flues.

The appeal site relates to a parade of commercial units with residential uses over upper storeys. Beyond this parade, the immediate area is predominantly residential.

The site is not located within a designated conservation area or within the setting of a listed building, but the locality is characterised by a varied range of building types and ages that contributes positively to the established character and visual interest of the area. Despite the presence of 2 front extensions, there is a degree of consistency in the front building lines of the properties within the parade and a substantial footway to the front.

The development includes alterations to the shopfront and the addition of a structure with retractable roof and glazed screens to the front and side to provide an outside seating area. The appellant alleges the front extension is retractable rather than fixed, lightweight in appearance, visually permeable and functionally subordinate to the host building. However, when fully in place, it reads as a solid extension with a substantial and fixed aluminium structure as well as fixed glazing panels to the lower section and to the side of the roof.

The excessive size and scale of the double frontage structure results in an incongruous addition that fails to read as a well-integrated scheme with the host property. The eye is drawn to the resulting bulk and mass of the development, thereby undermining the appreciation of the original front elevations of Nos 65 and 67. The front elevation is prominent within the street scene and the fascia board of the host properties are largely hidden from views within the public realm. Furthermore, the extension has a strong horizontal emphasis whereas the upper storeys have a stronger vertical emphasis due to the consistent alignment of the windows on the different floors. The design of the extension highlights the inconsistency between the ground floor and upper levels. Overall, the front addition does not appear subordinate due to its size and forward position and its design conflicts with the character of the host properties.

Additionally, the development to the front appears particularly prominent in views along [address] when looking west towards the appeal site given its substantial front projection. No 67 is also set down lower in height than No 65 due to a modest reduction in land level at this location. However, the proposal would be constructed across No 67 at a continuous height with the lower fascia height of No

The overall height and mass of the front extension would therefore create an overly dominant and awkward relationship with the commercial properties to the east of the appeal site which are set at a lower level. Furthermore, when approaching the site from the west along [address], the commercial properties beyond No 67 to the east of the parade are largely obscured from view by the extension. Therefore, the front addition spoils the appearance of the parade as a whole.

The flue and other alterations to the rear of the appeal site are not highly visible within the public realm and so they do not harm the character and appearance of the area. However, the flue to the front elevation would be clearly seen from the street and it would appear as a discordant and visually intrusive feature in a prominent location within the commercial parade. Its significant size and presence would detract from the host properties and the wider terrace.

The appellant draws attention to a number of examples of front extensions to commercial properties in the area. This includes the commercial premises adjacent to the appeal site at 61 and [address] (Nos 61 and 63). The front extension to the appeal property adjoins this development and both are of a similar height and depth of projection. However, the example at Nos 61 and 63 relates to a single shop frontage, whereas the extension at the appeal property comprises a substantial double width shop frontage, creating an excessive span of development to the front of the appeal site. Moreover, the addition of an adjoining front extension of considerable bulk leads to a visual clutter within the street scene where the cumulative effect would be detrimental to the visual qualities of the parade. Therefore, the existing extension at Nos 61 and 63 does not address my concerns.

There is a further example of a front addition to a commercial premises along the parade at 45 to [address], where planning permission was granted for a single storey front extension with retractable roof in 2025. From observations at my site visit, it appears this front extension is not the full width of the property, and its depth of projection is more limited than the front element of the appeal development. Accordingly, this example does not overcome or justify the harm that I have found from the proposal.

I have also been provided details of an example at [address]. However, this site is located a significant distance from the appeal site and does not share the same site context. It is therefore of limited weight in my decision. Whilst there are a mixture of shopfront designs, signage types and outdoor seating arrangements in the locality reflecting both traditional and more modern interventions, this does not outweigh my findings. As set out in my reasoning above, I find that the proposal, by virtue of its excessive scale and design, would appear incongruous within its setting and would harm the character and appearance of the host properties and the locality. In this context, I find that the degree of harm would be significant.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that there was a planning permission1 granted at the appeal site for a front seating area that predates the proposed development. [name] have not been provided full details of this proposal, I note from the photographic evidence submitted that this was not a fully enclosed area, where the structure is 1 22/2340/FUL. more lightweight in appearance. Also, it included planters and low boundary fencing used to delineate the seating area and thereby it appeared less solid in form compared to the current scheme. Therefore, this previous scheme is significantly different to the appeal development, and it does not alter my findings or justify the harm that I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the host properties and the surrounding area. In this regard, it is contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of The Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP). Together these policies promote high quality design and development that responds sensitively to the distinctive local character, style and form of buildings and their contexts.

The use of the premises includes the cooking of hot food, and flues serving the kitchen extraction equipment are located to both the front and rear of the appeal site. These flues are sited in close proximity to neighbouring residences above the commercial premises and to the rear along [address]. As such, noise and odours from the flues could potentially harm living conditions for nearby residents. In these regards, I note the Council’s environmental health team has previously received a complaint regarding the noise and odour emitted from existing flues at the front and rear of the premises.

A noise impact assessment has been submitted with the appeal alongside technical details regarding the kitchen extract equipment. From the findings of the technical report and information submitted, I am satisfied that noise and odour issues would be of an acceptable level subject to proposed mitigation measures which could be secured through condition.

[name] note that the Council has made reference to a requirement to locate the flues so that they vent at 1.5m above the eaves of the building, I do not find reference to this requirement in the policies cited or in the guidance of the SPD. In so far as it is a material consideration to this appeal, the SPD sets out that restaurants or other odour emitting premises will be required to locate air extracts appropriately to avoid nuisance to neighbouring occupiers. From the technical reports provided, I have no reason to disagree with these findings.

For the reasons set out above, I find the siting of the front and rear flues would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers, with particular regard to noise and odour. In these regards, the development accords with the provisions of Policy ECC02 of the BLP, in that it would not give rise to unacceptable noise levels or odour impacts on nearby sensitive uses. The development is also compliant with Policy CDH01 of the BLP which seeks to provide a good standard of amenity for adjoining occupiers. I further find no conflict with Policy D14, D3 and SI 1 of the LP which requires development to avoid adverse noise and environmental impacts.

The development has economic benefits in terms of enabling an existing business to operate and to trade as well as supporting the vibrancy of the local area. However, these factors do not outweigh or justify the harm that I have found and do not lead me to a different finding overall.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s comments about the Council’s pre application advice in respect to this proposal. However, these are matters between the appellant and the Council and fall outside the scope of this appeal.

I am satisfied that the development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers. Nevertheless, for the reasons given under the first main issue, I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.