Appeal 6006523

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey, rear extension with 2 No. rooflights with a new terrace, access steps and glazed pergola following the demolition of the existing garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/4706/HSE, subject to the following conditions: - (1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 2023-11-2201 Rev 1 ([name]); 2023-11-2202 Rev 1 ([name]) and 2023-11-2900 (Location plan). (2) The flat roof shall not to be used as a balcony.

The appeal is made retrospectively for development already constructed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan -making and national decision - making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issues, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The local planning authority (LPA) has referred to ‘inaccurate and inconsistent plans and elevations have been submitted, such that the Local Planning authority is unable to fully assess the proposal’. It would seem that this includes references to ‘plans labelled ‘existing’ and ‘proposed’ rather than to ‘pre-existing’ and ‘as built’ (or similar). In addition, the LPA has referred to differences between the submitted proposed plans and what has been built. However, any such issues have not deterred or prevented me from determining the appeal based upon the submitted plans before me. Should there be discrepancies between the proposed plans and what has been constructed, this would be a separate matter beyond the scope of this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (i) the character and appearance of the host property and that of the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of No.115 Daneland in terms of outlook.

No. [site address] is an end of terrace property located in a predominantly residential area of mainly terraced dwellings of similar original design and size, though many have been extended and altered over the years so that the area now has a more diverse, rather than a uniform character and appearance. [address] Wood nature reserve is located to the rear of the host property.

The proposed development is for a single-storey, L-shaped, rear extension with a depth of about 3.5 metres along its boundary with No.115, Daneland and extending to approximately 5.0 metres adjacent to No.119, Daneland. Beyond the proposed extension is a glazed pergola with a depth extending from between 1.5 metres at one point and to a depth of some 3.0 metres elsewhere, including to the side adjoining No. 115, Daneland.

The adjoining property at No. 115, Daneland has a single storey rear extension and a raised patio, while No.119, Daneland has a single-storey extension with a depth of approximately 5.0 metres and separated from the host property by detached garages located along the side boundary. The garage to the neighbouring property would be unaffected by the proposed development, but that relating to the host property would be removed.

Both parties refer to an extant planning permission for a rear extension to the host property, approved in June 2024, of similar dimensions and design to what is now proposed1. A main difference is the proposed inclusion of the glazed pergola, extending from the rear extension by between 1.5 and 3.0 metres. The extant permission also includes a detached outbuilding in the rear garden. A further difference is that the proposal is for the use of external brickwork, whereas the extant planning permission is for the use of render. 1 24/1686/HSE

The extant permission represents a fall-back position to which I afford significant weight in the decision-making process.

I consider that the proposal, in terms of its size, extent and design would represent no significant change to the extant approval in terms of the impact upon the character and appearance of the host property and that of the area. Even in the absence of an extant approval for a very similar development, I consider that the proposed development would assimilate satisfactorily within its site and area.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development accords with policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the London Borough of Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP), and the London Borough of Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD), all of which require development to respond sensitively to local character in terms of stye, form and the use of materials.

The LPA considers that, as No. 119, Daneland has a garage sited between it and the proposed development, and as the latter is set in from its boundary by approximately 1.5 metres, there would be no significantly adverse impact upon the occupants in terms of outlook or overlooking. I have no reason to disagree.

So far as the impact of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No.115, Daneland are concerned, the LPA considers that ‘the as built extension and rear pergola/associated fencing appears overbearing, creating a sense of enclosure to this neighbouring property’.

However, there is an extant permission for a very similar extension, the main difference in terms of outlook being the proposed pergola, but which has limited height. It extends beyond both the extant and now proposed rear extension by approximately 3.0 metres along the party boundary, but where there are views through its upper side wall from the adjoining property.

Moreover, the effect upon the living conditions of No.115, Daneland is mitigated by its own rear extension, while the appellant also refers to its raised patio.

For the above reasons, I consider that the proposed development would not cause material harm to the occupiers of No.115, Daneland in terms of their outlook.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with policy D3 of the LP, policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the BLP, the SPD and the Council’s Sustainable Design and [name] (2016), all of which require an acceptable level of outlook for the occupiers of adjoining properties.

I have imposed a condition relating to the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition to prevent the use of the proposed flat roof to the proposed extension as a balcony in order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.