Two storey front extension including conversion of the existing garage into habitable room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 August 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3204970 80 Clifford Road, New Barnet, Barnet, EN5 5NY  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 & Mrs P Hurst against the decision of London Borough of Barnet Council.  The application Ref 18/2318/HSE, dated 17 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 June 2018.  The development proposed is two storey front extension including conversion of the existing garage into habitable room. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey front extension including conversion of the existing garage into habitable room at 80 Clifford Road, New Barnet, Barnet, EN5 5NY in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 18/2318/HSE, dated 17 April 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby approved shall be carried in accordance with the following approved plans: drawings number 476518/1 and 476518/2, and 1:500 scale site location plan. Main Issue 2. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the house and the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey detached house, oriented parallel to the road and with gable ends to the main roof. There is a large existing two storey front extension. This occupies over half the width of the house, and has a hip end to the roof. The proposal involves constructing a two storey infill, in line with the existing extension, and with a unified roof above. An existing canopy roof over the garage would also be carried onto the new extension. There is no objection to the conversion of the garage to a habitable room. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3204970 2 4. On 2 November last year, the Council gave planning permission for a single storey front and two storey side extension, Ref 17/5801/HSE. I understand that the ground floor of this scheme would be similar to the appeal proposal, but that the first floor would be stepped back. As a consequence, the new and existing extensions would have separate roofs with a valley between. This permission is still valid, though the appellant has given no indication that it might form a fall back position if this appeal fails. Nonetheless, I regard the differences between the approved and proposed extensions as being an important material consideration. 5. The existing and proposed extensions, taken together, would substantially enlarge the house as originally built. However, I consider that the house would not appear cramped on its plot, it would not protrude forward of its neighbours, and even enlarged it would not be larger in scale than several other houses along the road. As a result, I consider that the proposal would not be dominant or visually obtrusive, as claimed by the Council. 6. The design of the house as extended would be very close to symmetrical. The roof over the extensions, though large, would help unify the front elevation. So long as the top of the roof over the extensions is set down from the main ridge, as shown on the drawings, I consider that the two parts of the house would relate satisfactorily to each other. I would consider the overall design and appearance to be acceptable, had it come before me as a project for an entirely new build house. The appeal proposal would also have the advantage of not having the rather fragmented front elevation of the approved scheme. 7. Clifford Road has an extremely varied streetscene in terms of ages and styles of dwelling, though most are houses two storeys in height. The proposal would not be out of keeping in this eclectic setting, and the imposition of a condition to secure the use of matching materials would ensure a satisfactory appearance for the house as a whole. I took note of other extensions along the road, including that referred to me at no.39. This adds further variety to the streetscene, but otherwise adds little weight to the appeal. 8. I conclude that the proposal would be in keeping with, and not detract from, the character and appearance of the house and the streetscene. It would not be contrary to Policy DM01 in Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies (2012) or Policy CS5 in the accompanying Core Strategy (2012). Among other things, these policies seek high quality designs for attractive development that respects local character and distinctiveness. I have also found no material conflict with the purposes of the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016), in that the proposal would reflect the design of the original building, being subordinate in scale to it, and have regard to the character and appearance of the area. 9. I also need to impose a planning condition to specify the approved drawings, in the interests of certainty. Subject to this, there is no reason to withhold planning permission, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR