Proposed development is for single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 April 2022 by A.Graham BA(hons) MAued IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2022. Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/21/3288031 23 Sneath Avenue, London NW11 9AJ • 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 Joseph Roth against the decision of London Borough of Barnet Council. • The application Ref 21/4372/HSE, dated 5 August 2021, was refused by notice dated 12 November 2021. • The proposed development is for single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension to 23 Sneath Avenue, London in accordance with application Ref 21/4372/HSE, dated 5 August 2021 subject to the conditions listed in the schedule below. Main Issues 2. The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Number 23 Sneath Avenue is a semi detached property that is located within what is a rather dense residential area where properties, despite being semi detached, are located relatively close to each other. Sneath Avenue itself therefore has the appearance of a tight knit urban area almost akin to a terrace street. As such the rear gardens of the properties are rarely visible from the streetscene. 4. Several properties contain what appear to be original two storey outshot elements to their rear elevations along with large scale rear dormers. The appeal property is no exception to this and a rear ‘wing’ extends into the rear garden and the main roof is topped with a flat roof dormer extension. The adjoining property exhibits similar features except this property has infilled the ‘L’ shaped area between this rear wing and the common boundary with a single storey conservatory extension. To the opposite boundary the opposing neighbour has also extended in a similar manner. 5. The proposal before me intends to also infill this rear ‘L’ shaped space and extend with a flat roof, single storey extension that would allow access into the garden through full height bi-folding doors. Through infilling the gap between Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/21/3288031 2 the kitchen outshut element of the house the total extension would exceed the depth suggested within the Council’s Residential Design Guidance. When the kitchen rear extension is taken into account, the projection from the rear of the property would be around 3.8 metres and this would also slightly exceed the guidance by around 0.3m. 6. In assessing this appeal I consider that the proposed extension would, on the whole, be of a much better quality than that of other such extensions that I saw nearby. The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) encourages good design in such contexts and as such I give great weight to the overall quality of the extension in this regard that I feel would improve the appearance of the area. 7. Although the proposal would still slightly exceed the guidance for rear projections of extensions I do not consider that this would necessarily cause any tangible harm either to the character and appearance of the area or that it would interfere with the established rear building line or affect the living conditions of neighbours. 8. Therefore, in light of the extension being well enclosed on all sides, not visible from the street and not overly exceeding the depth of neighbouring extensions, I consider that the proposal would improve the character and appearance of the area through its sympathetic and high quality design and that this would compensate for the lack of strict conformity with the Residential Design Guidance. 9. In light of this I consider that the requirements of Policy CS5 of the Barnet Core Strategy DPD (2012) and Policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012) have been met and that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours and that it would represent a high quality design response in extending this property. Conditions 10. I have included the conditions suggested by the Council in their appeal statement that meet the requirements of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Conclusion 11. For the reasons above, taking into account all other matters raised, I allow the appeal subject to the conditions outlined below. A Graham INSPECTOR Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/21/3288031 3 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: SA.23.PR.01 and SA.23.PR.02. 2. The development shall be begun within three years from the date of this decision notice. 3. The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the building shall match those specified in the approved plans and application form. 4. The roof of the extension hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with the repair and maintenance of the building and shall at no time be converted to or used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area. End of Schedule