First floor rear extension to provide two new bedrooms, en-suite bathroom and ancillary accommodation

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/18/3194888 43 Friern Mount Drive, Whetstone, London N20 9DJ  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 Christopher Miller against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/7400/HSE, dated 18 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 January 2018.  The development proposed is first floor rear extension to provide two new bedrooms, en-suite bathroom and ancillary accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension to provide two new bedrooms, en-suite bathroom and ancillary accommodation at 43 Friern Mount Drive, Whetstone, London N20 9DJ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 17/7400/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: M1-Survey as existing; M2-Proposed first floor extension. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows or doors other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed at any time in the first floor side elevations of the development hereby approved. 5) Prior to occupation of the extension hereby permitted , the first floor windows in the elevation facing 41 Friern Mount Drive shall be obscurely glazed to level 4 or higher on the Pilkington scale of privacy or equivalent and any openings shall be a minimum of 1.7m above floor level. Once installed the window unit shall be retained as such for the life of the development. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3194888 2 Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area and the existing dwelling; and the effect on the living conditions of adjacent residents. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached single storey dwelling. The locality is made up of single and two storey residential properties of various styles and designs. The site levels in the locality mean that Nos 41 and 43 are at a higher site level than 45 adjacent. Character and Appearance 4. The Council’s SPD ‘Residential Design Guidance’ states that extensions should be subordinate to the original house; respect the original building; and should not be overly dominant. 5. The appeal dwelling has previously been extended a number of times. The proposed extension before me effectively subsumes an existing flat roofed extension and also necessitates the removal of a large section of a flat roofed dormer, and the total removal of a small dormer. 6. The proposal would not be visible from the highway, and subsequently would not cause any harm to the street scene. The removal of the dormer windows and flat roof single storey extension and their replacement with a single extension would lead to overall improvements to the appearance of the dwelling. It would harmonise with the existing dwelling, and would not appear as an incongruous feature that would harm the character and appearance of the wider area. 7. For the reasons above, I consider that the development would not be of significant detriment to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the local area with regard to its height and siting. As such, it does not conflict with Policy CS5 of Barnet's Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document, Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document, Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) or the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance. 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. Effect on the living conditions of adjacent residents 8. I acknowledge that the proposed extension, close to the boundary with No 45 would be a more prominent feature than the existing relationship, but the orientation of the windows draws the outlook from No 45 toward the rear garden and beyond. Therefore while the proposal would result in some additional sense of enclosure to one side, the wider outlook from the rear windows would not be significantly compromised as a result of the development. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3194888 3 9. The main outdoor seating areas to No 45 are situated away from the boundary, and I consider that any additional sense of enclosure would be very localised, and not have significant implications for the living conditions of the neighbouring residents with regard to the enjoyment and use of the wider garden area. 10. The proposal is therefore consistent with the amenity objectives of Policy CS5 of the Barnet Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2012, Policy DM01 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2012 and guidance contained within The London Borough of Barnet Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016). Conditions 11. The Council has suggested a number of conditions to be imposed 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 and have added them appropriately. I have also added a condition to ensure that the first floor windows facing no 41 are obscurely glazed and permanently retained as such. 12. In terms of the conditions I have 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 is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. The conditions relating to the removal of PD rights should only be added in exceptional circumstances, and I consider that the relationship would be materially different, to the detriment of adjacent residents, if these were not added to ensure the privacy of adjacent residents. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Cooper INSPECTOR