Erection of a first floor addition to rear; use of existing and additional roof space for accommodation, including dormers; single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 June 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3198011 6 Winnington Close, East Finchley, London N2 0UA  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 and Mrs Gross against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/6940/HSE, dated 1 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 January 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a first floor addition to rear; use of existing and additional roof space for accommodation, including dormers; single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first floor addition to rear; use of existing and additional roof space for accommodation, including dormers; single storey side extension at 6 Winnington Close, East Finchley, London N2 0UA in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/6940/HSE, dated 1 November 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision. Application for costs 2. An application for costs has been made by Mr and Mrs Gross against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Main issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development firstly, on the character and appearance of the local area; secondly, on the living conditions of the occupiers of 5 and 7 Winnington Close with regard to privacy and, additionally in relation to No 7, visual impact; and thirdly, on trees. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey detached house within the Hampstead Garden Suburb (HGS). The HGS was originally designed as a dormitory suburb using many of the ideas from the Garden City movement. It contains a wide range of house types from big mansions to small cottages with a highly varied yet compatible range of building designs. The HGS covers an extensive area and is described in the Character Area Statement (CAS) as one of the finest Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3198011 2 examples of early twentieth century domestic architecture and town planning. The HGS was designated a conservation area (CA) in 1968. 5. Winnington Close is a later addition to the HGS. It includes relatively modern detached houses of differing design set within good-sized landscaped plots. According to the CAS, the Winnington Close properties add little of architectural note. I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 6. The proposal is to enlarge No 6 with extensions on 3 sides and at roof level together with new windows and doors. At the rear, the first floor extension would be considerable in width and depth, extending outwards to form a new 2-storey façade. Even so, it has been designed to create a cohesive style across the finished building rather than introduce a subordinate element to the original house. Having regard to the overall size and mass of the completed dwelling, this element of the appeal scheme would not add disproportionate scale or bulk to the property nor would it appear incongruous. 7. Several dormers would be placed onto the extended roof slopes that would serve the new living space at second floor level. These dormers would add to the scale and bulk of the building at high level and would result in a significant change to the appearance of the dwelling. Nevertheless, each dormer would be modest in size and set well in from the edges of the host roof. With a good expanse of main roof slope still evident, and adequate space around the dormers on all sides, these features, taken individually and collectively, would not appear overly large or bulky. Furthermore, the window openings in the proposed dormers would be in proportion to the windows in the elevations below. The external materials would also be appropriate. 8. Given these findings and the submitted design, I find no material conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Design Guidance (SPD), which states that rear and dormer extensions should normally be designed so as to appear ‘subordinate’ to the original house. As such, a potential conflict with this aspect of the SPD is insufficient in itself to withhold planning permission given the particular circumstances in this case. 9. To one side of the finished dwelling would be an extended roof slope from the ridge to the eaves, which the main parties refer to as a cat slide roof. A new dormer would be set into this pitched roof at first floor level. While this arrangement is not an obvious feature of properties in the area around the site, it would be in keeping with the individual style of the completed dwelling. These aspects of the proposal would not draw the eye nor look out of place among the varied built form and roof styles of properties in the local area. 10. The Council appears to raise no objection to the rest of the appeal scheme, which includes a ground floor rear extension and alterations to the fenestration. I, too, find these components of the proposal acceptable in their design and scale, and in keeping with the intrinsic character of the host building. 11. Overall, the dwelling, once enlarged, would have an acceptable appearance. It would have been significantly changed on all sides. However, taken as a whole, the finished building would be in keeping with the qualities, character and appearance of an individually designed dwelling. Taken individually and together, the first floor and roof level changes would not add disproportionate Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3198011 3 scale or bulk to the building nor appear obtrusive or unsympathetic given the unified style of the proposal. From what I saw, other properties along Winnington Close have had far more prominent extensions and external alterations without detriment to the quality of the local street scene. To my mind, the diversity and cohesion of the existing built form, which is a distinctive feature of the CA, would be maintained with the new built form in place. Hence, the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved. 12. On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it does not conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) (CS), Policy DM01 of the Council’s Development Management Policies (DMP), Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan (LP) or the SPD. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that development achieves high quality design; has regard to the local historical context; respects local character; and protects and enhances conservation areas. Living conditions 13. The inclusion of obscure glass in the windows of the new side dormers would overcome potential overlooking problems towards the properties on either side of the site, which are 5 and 7 Winnington Close. This measure could be covered by a condition if planning permission were to be granted. 14. The proposal would add built form at the side and back of the main house with the extended rear façade projecting beyond the rear build line of No 7. As a result, the upper part of the finished building would be evident from the back garden of this neighbouring house and from some of its windows. Even so, the new first floor rear element would be noticeably set back from the shared boundary between the site and No 7. From the back garden of No 7, the proposal would be seen against the backdrop of the enlarged dwelling and filtered through the established boundary vegetation, which would partly screen and visually soften the new built form. Taken together, the presence of the new built form would not be so great or imposing as to overbear on the occupiers of No 7. 15. On the second main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not unduly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5 and 7. As such, there is no conflict with the policies cited by the Council insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. Trees 16. The Council states that the proposal would be likely to cause damage to trees of special amenity value although it is unclear from the submitted evidence to what particular specimen(s) that concern is mainly directed. While there are trees and other planting on and adjoining the site, I saw no significant greenery that would be directly affected by the proposal, which is the appellants’ position. The application forms also make clear that no trees or hedges will be removed or pruned to carry out the proposal. In the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, I am unable to share the Council’s concern about the potential harm to trees taking into account the position of the site within the CA. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3198011 4 17. On the third main issue, I find that there is no evidence that the proposal would cause material harm to trees. Consequently, there is no conflict with CS Policies CS5 and CS7 and DMP Policy DM01, which aim to maintain and improve the greening of the environment by protecting trees and their roots. Conditions 18. I have assessed the Council’s suggested conditions, which are set out in both the Officer’s report and the appeal questionaire in the light of national policy and guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is appropriate to impose a condition to require that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In doing so, I note that there is a minor inconsistency in the drawings with regard to the first floor side window in the southeast elevation. 19. Given the size of the new extensions, it is important that the finished building has a unified appearance and identity with respect to the materials used. This can be most effectively achieved if details are submitted for approval before work starts. It is necessary to impose a condition to this effect to ensure that the appearance of the completed dwelling is satisfactory. For the same reason, details of type of the new roof light are required, given the location of the site within the CA. 20. To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, conditions are attached to prevent the use of the new flat roof as a balcony or similar outdoor amenity area and to require obscure glazing be installed in the upper side windows. For the same reason, a condition is imposed to remove some permitted development rights in relation to additional windows in the side elevations of the dwelling. Given my findings in relation to the third main issue, a condition requiring a plan and measures to protect trees, as suggested by the Council, is unnecessary. 21. Where appropriate, I have amended the wording of the conditions suggested by the Council for clarity and to more closely reflect national policy. Conclusion 22. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3198011 5 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3198011 6 Winnington Close, East Finchley, London N2 0UA Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Refs 17-RG/172/001, 17-RG/172/002, 17-RG/172/003 A, 17-RG/172/004 A, 17-RG/172/005 A and 17-RG/172/006. 3) No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) Before the development is commenced, details of the roof light shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) The roof area of the single storey rear extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. 6) The extensions hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows at first floor level in the north west and south east elevations and the window at second floor level in the northwest elevation have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be permanently retained thereafter. 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the northwest or southeast elevations.