Loft conversion

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Extensions
Character & Appearance

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 October 2017 by Siobhan Watson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 9 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/17/3177214 25 Sphinx Way, Barnet, EN5 2FG  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Aron James against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/1787/HSE, dated 21 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 May 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a terraced house within a recently constructed housing estate. The straight roof of the long terrace provides a distinct smooth edge to the building which is prominent in public views from Hammond Close. The proposed dormer would be deep, wide and bulky and would break the continuous linear feature of the rear roof plane. It would be an obtrusive feature on the building and within the wider street-scene. 4. The proposed dormer would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policy 7.6 of the London Plan 2016; Policy CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy), 2012; Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) 2012; and Barnet’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance, 2016. In combination, these policies seek high standards of urban design and to protect the character and appearance of the area. 5. I appreciate that the appellant has a growing family which puts pressure on bedroom space. However, planning permission runs with the land rather than with the applicant or appellant. Therefore, if the appeal were to be allowed, the resultant dormer would be a permanent feature within the street-scene. I therefore give the personal circumstances of the appellant limited weight. 6. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Siobhan Watson INSPECTOR
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →