First floor rear bedroom extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2018 by Paul Cooper MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3194793 Site of 1 The Pastures, Whetstone, London N20 8AN  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 & Mrs J Tendler against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/7484/HSE, dated 24 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 January 2018.  The development proposed is first floor rear bedroom extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for a first floor rear bedroom extension at the site of 1 The Pastures, Whetstone, London N20 8AN in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 17/7484/HSE dated 24 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1576.P.01 Existing Site Plan and Streetscape; 1576.P.02 Existing Plans and Elevations; 1576.P.02 Proposed Plans and Elevations; 1576.P.04 Proposed Site Plan and Streetscape; 1576.P.04 Site Location Plan. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. I note that the Council’s decision notice refers to ‘proposed extensions’. The appellant has also noted this inaccuracy, as the proposal is clearly for one extension, as described above. I have proceeded with the appeal on the basis of a single extension. 3. I have also noted the comments of the appellant that two drawings have been given the same number on the original submission. This was replicated in the Council’s decision notice. As both parties are aware of the issue, I am content that the appeal may continue on that numbering basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3194793 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site is a large two storey detached dwelling with a crown roof, and is the first dwelling on The Pastures, a cul-de-sac of detached dwellings of various styles and designs. The property is located within the Totteridge Conservation Area, and was granted consent in 2013 following the demolition of the original dwelling. 6. The Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement states that The Pastures is included as an example of ‘bland residential development’ and is identified as a negative feature within the Conservation Area. 7. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas. Moreover, paragraph 132 of the Framework emphasises that heritage assets can be harmed by development in their setting. 8. The proposal is to create a first floor extension over part of the existing ground floor section. The new roof would extend the existing eaves, but step down at ridge level, which would harmonise with the existing dwelling. 9. At my site visit, I could observe the property from Barnet Lane. The proposed extension would be located close to the corner of the existing dwelling, but some way from the side boundary, which in itself has tree screening alongside. Even without the trees in full bloom, views of the appeal proposal would be somewhat disrupted. 10. The extension itself would appear modest in comparison to the existing dwelling, and would not appear incongruous from a design perspective as it follows the design principles of the existing dwelling. The proportions of the scheme ensure that it would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene, nor would it be overbearing in the locality or to adjacent residents. In conclusion, it would not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 11. For the reasons above, I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the significance of the heritage asset. It would preserve the character of the Conservation Area, and as such would comply with both the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at section 12 in respect of the historic environment and also with policy DM06 of the Barnet Local Plan (Development Management Policies) which seeks to protect the significance of all heritage assets and preserve and enhance the Borough’s conservation areas. 12. As such, it does not conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document or Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document. These policies and guidance broadly aim to ensure that development achieves the highest standards of urban design; respects local context; and preserves or enhances local character. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3194793 3 Conditions 13. The Council has suggested a number of conditions to be added if the appeal is to be allowed. I have considered these against advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance. I do not consider that the roof of the extension could realistically be used for other purposes, given the sloping roof design, to warrant a condition that restricts use of the roof for a balcony, whilst there are no exceptional circumstances on site, or that have been demonstrated to warrant the removal of PD rights, and there would be no impact on trees from an extension that is contained within the existing footprint of the dwelling. The restriction on window positioning suggested by the Council is not required, as it will not lead to additional overlooking of adjacent dwellings to a level that could cause harm to their living conditions. As such, I do not consider the above conditions to meet the tests set out in the documents above and have not added these to the appeal conditions. 14. In terms of the conditions imposed, I have included standard conditions in relation to the commencement of development and that the proposal should be constructed in accordance with submitted plans, in the interests of certainty. A condition regarding matching materials safeguards the character and appearance of the area. Conclusions 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Cooper INSPECTOR