First floor side extension on top of existing ground floor side extension with rooflight

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2018 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/17/3191779 7 Maxwelton Avenue, Mill Hill, London NW7 3NB  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 Elliot Freeman against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/5239/HSE, dated 11 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 October 2017.  The development proposed is first floor side extension on top of existing ground floor side extension with rooflight. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form which differs from that on the Council’s decision notice. In Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed and neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application. 3. The conclusion of the Council’s Delegated report refers to an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. However, it is clear from the body of that report as well as the Council’s reason for refusal that this was not a matter which was considered to represent a reason to refuse planning permission. I have also determined this appeal on that basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene. Reasons 5. The appeal site is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and has had a number of extensions and alterations. These include a rear dormer and hip to gable extension to the main pitched roof as well as a ground floor extension with a crown roof. 6. I note that the Council consider that the proposal is acceptable in principle, but express concern about design and appearance. I saw that the host dwelling Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/17/3191779 2 has a variety of roof forms including the main pitched gable roof and the flat roofed dormer to the rear. However, even within such a varied roofscape, the proposed crown roof would not sit comfortably in relation to the host building and would appear as an incongruous addition to the side of the property. The bulk and massing of the extension would add to this obtrusive appearance, particularly due to the projection beyond the main rear elevation of the dwelling at first floor level and above. 7. I acknowledge that the design of the crown roof reflects that used on the extant ground floor extension. However, whilst this roof design may be appropriate at ground floor level, this does not justify the use of the same design for a more prominent first floor extension which I consider should respond to the main roof of the property rather than the ground floor. 8. The appellant contends that the proposal would be subservient to the host building. This is correct insofar as the extension would not be as high as the main roof of the dwelling. However, this would not overcome the awkward relationship between the various roof forms and I consider that the squat appearance of the crown roof would add to this incongruous appearance. The limited step back from the main front elevation would exacerbate this harm, both in relation to the main front wall as well as the front roof slope. 9. I saw that the appeal site is located in a prominent position adjacent to a crossroads and that the proposal would be readily visible from the adjacent highway. This would include views along Sunbury Gardens and Manor Drive where it would project even further beyond the established building line than the main bulk of the existing dwelling. Whilst there are street trees in the area, I saw that these would not substantially obscure the extension in short to medium distance views from the surrounding area, although I acknowledge that the trees were not in leaf at the time of my site visit. Within this context, the proposal would appear as a prominent and obtrusive feature within the streetscape. 10. My attention has been drawn to a first floor side extension which has been approved on a nearby dwelling at 3 Maxwelton Avenue. However, whilst I have not been provided with full details of that proposal, I saw that No 3 is located between two other properties and is not in as prominent a location as the appeal site. The circumstances of that site are therefore materially different from the appeal before me. The appellant has also referred to a number of other properties on corner sites in the wider area which have side extensions at first floor level. However, I saw that these were of a more appropriate design incorporating features such as a roof which complemented the main roof of the dwelling or a suitable step back from the main front elevation. These examples do not therefore lead me to a different conclusion on this appeal, which I have in any event determined on its own merits. 11. The appellant emphasises that there is no uniformity in the design of dwellings in this area. Accordingly, I saw that there is some variety in the appearance of dwellings in the area, both in terms of their original design and subsequent alterations. However, even within such a varied streetscene, I consider that the unsympathetic design of the proposal would result in an obtrusive feature to the detriment of the area. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the wider streetscene. The proposal Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/17/3191779 3 would therefore be contrary to Policy DM01 of the Council’s Development Management Policies1 and Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Core Strategy2. These policies require development to preserve or enhance local character as well as requiring the highest standards of urban design which respects local context. The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the Residential Design Guidance3 in relation to the scale, massing, roof form and existing building line of surrounding buildings. 13. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all material planning considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR 1 Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2012 2 Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2012 3 Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance 2013