Single storey rear extension to side of back addition

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2018 by Peter D Biggers BSc Hons MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3205672 69 Salisbury Road, Barnet EN5 4JL  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 B Tumani against the decision of the London Borough of Barnet Council.  The application Ref 18/2514/HSE, dated 25 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2018.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension to side of back addition. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are:  the effect of the proposed development on the charact er and appearance of the host dwelling and the surroundings of Salisbury Road and  whether the proposed development would result in an adverse impact on the living conditions for present and future occupiers of No 67 Salisbury Road in terms of outlook and proximity. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property is an end of terrace 2 storey house to a traditional design and built in red brick with white stucco detailing. To the east of No 69 a higher more recent terrace of properties provides the immediate neighbouring context to the appeal property. 4. No 69 has already been subject to a number of extensions having a substantial roof extension to the main roof, a roof extension on the rear offshoot and a ground floor flat roof extension to the rear extending across about 3/4 of the width of the property. 5. It has been put to me that other (unspecified) properties have been developed to the same degree to their rear which the appellants consider justify the proposal in this case. Whilst it was clear to see on site that many properties have had dormer roof extensions constructed, it was not possible to see whether extensions at ground floor level had been developed in a manner similar to what is proposed in the appeal case. In that respect it is not possible to ascertain whether other extensions are similar and I have determined the appeal case on its own merits. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3205672 2 6. The proposal would extend the rear offshoot to the full width of the property, slightly increasing its height and infilling the traditional side gap between the rear offshoot and the boundary and would result in blocking off an attractive, traditionally-designed glazed doorway to the rear ground floor room. Although in height terms the proposed extension would remain subordinate, in combination with the two substantial dormer roof alterations, the extensions on the property totally dominate and subsume the original house to the point where the original character and appearance of the property would be effectively lost. 7. I accept that, the rear of the property is not visible from the public realm but, nevertheless, hardly any of the original character of the house would remain as a result of the extensions and the harm to the character and appearance of the property would be significant. 8. Specifically in respect of residential development, the Council has published a Supplementary Planning Document – Barnet Residential Design Guidance (SPD) which includes guidance relating to extensions. Proposed extensions should be consistent with the form, scale and architectural style of the original building, particularly where it is a period or suburban property. The SPD advises that this would normally be achieved amongst other things by respecting the proportions of the existing house, reflecting the character of the original house and ensuring the extension respects the original building and should not be overly dominant. The proposed development in combination with the extensions that have already been made would not comply with any of this advice. 9. I acknowledge that the SPD is guidance only but the harm to the character and appearance of the host property would also fail to deliver the policy objectives of both Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy (BLPCS) policy CS5 and Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies (BLPDMP) policy DM01 to respect, preserve and enhance local character. Living Conditions 10. The proposed extension would retain the very narrow gap between No 69 and 67 but would result in a full width extension which would extend 5 metres beyond the rear elevation of No 67. I acknowledge that the boundary fence, boundary landscaping and the fact that the basement level to No 67 and its patio is lower than No 69 means that the extension would be largely screened from the rear basement window and patio of No 67 because of the viewing angle. However, the extension would be much more dominant in the outlook from the ground/first floor window of No 67. Whilst I accept the extension would not extend more than about one third of the way up the window, the effect of what would be a c 9 metre long extension at this height would be in part enclosing and intrusive in the open outlook from the window. I note that the occupants of No 67 have not objected to the proposal, however I must consider the impact of the proposal both for present and future occupants. 11. The appellants have submitted a sunlight and daylight assessment that demonstrates there would be no appreciable effect on light levels to No 67 and I have no reason to take a different opinion that any impact on light levels would be limited. 12. Although the proximity and scale of the extension would have an impact on outlook for No 67, contrary to BLPDMP policy DM01 which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity and the guidance in the SPD, I am not persuaded that of itself it would warrant dismissal of the appeal. However, in combination with the harm to Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3205672 3 the character and appearance of No 69, the finished result of the proposal would be a poorly designed extension and an inappropriate addition to the appeal property. Other Matters 13. It is noted that the appellants, in proposing the extension at No 69 are seeking to make sustainable and effective use of their home, an objective which is encouraged by the Framework. Whilst I understand the expressed need to provide additional family space, for the reasons stated above this would not outweigh the detrimental impact the extension would have, on the character and appearance of the property and on the outlook from No 67. Conclusion 14. In reaching my decision I have had regard to the matters before me and for the reasons stated above the appeal should be dismissed. P. D. Biggers INSPECTOR