Erection of a 6m ground floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2021 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 February 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/20/3266031 115 Cheviot Gardens, Cricklewood, London NW2 1QD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Naim against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 20/5177/PNH, dated 27 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 2 December 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of a 6m ground floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The provisions of the GPDO, under Article 3 (1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 (7), require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. As an objection was received from the occupier of 187 The Vale, the prior approval of the local planning authority was required as to the impact of proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premises. 3. The occupier of No 187 has queried the accuracy of the application and suggests that some details on the plans are absent or misleading. However, there is adequate information before me and the submitted drawings are sufficiently clear to understand the proposal and to determine this appeal. Main issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of the occupiers of 113 Cheviot Gardens with particular regard to outlook, visual impact and sense of enclosure. Reasons 5. The proposed extension would extend across the full width of the appeal dwelling, which is a 2-storey semi-detached house. The new addition would also project outwards from the main rear elevation of No 115 by 6 metres with a new flank wall that would be up to and parallel with the shared boundary with the attached property, which is 113 Cheviot Gardens. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/20/3266031 2 6. There is a full-length ground floor window in the rear elevation of No 113 that is close to the common boundary with the site, which hereafter is referred to as the window. Views from the window would be dominated by the lengthy new flank wall with its considerable expanse of brick at close range. The effect of the new built form would also further enclose the space at the rear of No 113. Taken together, the considerable length and close proximity of the new flank wall would cause a dominant and overbearing aspect for the occupiers of No 113 and unduly heighten a sense of enclosure as experienced by them. 7. The appellant states that the occupiers of No 113 also wish to build a rear extension to their property that is similar to the proposal before me and that a separate application to do so has been refused. If both extensions were to be approved and built, as permitted, there would be a new common build line at the back of Nos 113 and 115 that would overcome the amenity problems to which I have referred. 8. However, that proposal at No 113 is not before me to determine and would need to be considered on its own merits. Even if I were persuaded that the grant of planning permission in this case would set a desirable precedent, and that a similar scheme at No 113 were also ready for determination, there is no mechanism before me to give certainty that these developments would be implemented together. While I appreciate that the current occupiers of No 113 support the proposal, as do those of No 117, I have also taken into account the amenity of future residents of this adjoining property. Therefore, I attach limited weight to this consideration in support of the appeal. 9. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 113. As such, it conflicts with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy), Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Design Guidance, insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. 10. Reference is made to several cases in which the appellant states that similar extensions have been allowed to properties particularly along Cheviot Gardens, The Vale and Cumbrian Gardens. However, given the limited details presented to me regarding these schemes, I do not know the circumstances relevant to their approval and can draw little comparison with the proposal before me. In any event, I am required to determine the proposal on its own merits. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR