Erection of a part single, part 2-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3197972 1A Oak Tree Drive, Whetstone, London N20 8QJ  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 Gareth Morgan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 18/0351/HSE was refused by notice dated 8 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a part single, part 2-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey semi-detached house that lies within a predominantly residential area, wherein dwellings differ in scale, type, style and general appearance. Like No 1A, several properties along Oak Tree Drive and Great Bushey Drive have been externally altered and extended, with some including side additions. Consequently, there is variety to the existing built form in the street scene and the local area to which the site belongs. The site is not within a conservation area nor is No 1A a listed building. 4. Although the proposed side addition would be set back from the main front wall, the line of the main ridge would be carried over the extension, thus adding to size and mass of the upper building. According to the Council, the combined width of the new addition and the existing side extension would be more than one half the width of the original dwelling, in conflict with the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Design Guidance (SPD). The finished building would also extend across much of the plot’s width save for a short set back from the site’s side boundary. 5. Taken together, I consider that the proposal would add disproportionate scale, width and bulk to the host building. It would also further imbalance the pair, as the attached counterpart to No 1A appears to largely retain its original form in the front façade albeit with a dormer placed on its side roof slope. The overall effect would be an incongruous and oversized addition to the host dwelling, detracting from the character and appearance of it and the pair. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3197972 2 6. The shape of the proposed side addition would also be unusual. The new first floor element would be parallel to the flank wall of the main building with a chamfered rear corner while the ground floor element would be angled across the plot with a new flank wall to broadly follow the site’s side boundary. This arrangement would make efficient use of the site given its roughly triangular shape. However, in doing so, the angled sidewalls and splayed hipped roof would appear unconvincing because it would relate poorly to the shape of the host building. It would conflict with the advice in the Council’s SPD, which states, amongst other things, that extensions should be consistent with the form and architectural style of the original dwelling. 7. Because No 1A stands on a bend in the road, its front and side elevations are prominent features in the local street scene. From Oak Tree Drive, the new side elevation would be visually read with the proposed front elevation with its set back from the main house, which would create an uneasy visual transition between the existing dwelling and the new addition. Taken together, the proposed angled side elevation and staggered front elevation, would add a discordant element to the dwelling and be obtrusive in the local street scene. 8. In reaching these conclusions, I note that the proposed ground floor element would be set further back from the road than the existing garage, which would be demolished and removed. However, the additional new built form would significantly increase the prominence of No 1A compared with the low-key presence of the single storey garage. I also note that the proposed external materials would match the existing dwelling. 9. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that planning decisions should not impose architectural styles nor stifle innovation or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness and to resist development that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. 10. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy CS5 of Barnet's Local Plan (Core Strategy), Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) and the Council’s SPD. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that development achieves the highest standards of urban design, respects the local context, and preserves or enhances local character. It would also be contrary to the Framework, which states that development should respond to local character and add to the overall qualities of an area. 11. I note appellant’s understandable desire to meet family needs without the cost of moving house. The additional living space provided would enhance the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1A. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 12. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the absence of objections from others, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR