Single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 October 2018 by G. Rollings, BA (Hons) MA(UD) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 9th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3207832 16 Granville Road, Barnet, EN5 4DU  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 Dr. Sunil Grover against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref: 18/2558/HSE dated 26 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The spelling of the appellant’s name is not consistent in the evidence. The version that I have used above was confirmed with the appellant at the site visit. 3. The application and appeal forms refer only to a proposed single storey front extension. However, the Council evidence and decision indicate that the proposed development comprises the substantial extension of the first floor to both the front and the rear of the existing dwelling. Additionally, the Council recently approved the works to the rear part of the house (Council Ref: 19/0005/HSE). Given that the grounds of appeal relate to the front part of the site, I have used the description of development as provided by the appellant, and have considered only these matters in my decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including a protected tree. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site accommodates a two-storey detached dwelling set back from the road. Part of the ground floor is a gabled protrusion, with a shallow canopy running along the remainder, including the garage. The proposal incorporates a substantial increase in the footprint of the dwelling, which would include the removal of the gable and the addition of a deeper canopy across the length of the front of the dwelling, with a small pediment above the front door. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3207832 2 6. In contrast with the eastern part of Granville Road, the appeal dwelling and its immediate neighbours have a more modern appearance. The detached houses adjacent to the appeal site have staggered front setbacks with front gardens of varying sizes. Many share common features in their appearance, such as front-facing gables, and are of a recognisably similar appearance. Some have extended front canopies, such as the appeal dwelling and a recently extended example at 6 Granville Road. 7. The Council’s adopted Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) states that large front extensions would not normally be permitted, due to their impact on the street scene and character of the area. In this instance, unlike the extension at No. 6, the canopy would not be accompanied by a bay or other projections at ground floor level, and as such, the ground floor would appear dominant. Additionally, the significant projecting distance from the main part of the house, along its entire frontage, would appear greater than the nearby examples and cause it to appear obtrusive, and incongruous within the street scene. As such, the works would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. I acknowledge that the works would maintain the distinct staggered nature of the house in relation to its neighbours and use similar materials, but these considerations do not mitigate my concerns. 8. I now turn to the matter of the tree in the front garden of the property, which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). It is a tall and highly prominent feature of the garden, and provides significant value in terms of its visual contribution to the property and the street. It is in close proximity to the existing building, and although the proposed works to that part of the house closest to the tree would not decrease the separation distance, works of other parts of the front elevation are likely impinge on the root protection area. 9. As part of the appeal evidence, the appellant submitted additional information regarding the potential impacts of the work on the tree, and the Council has had the opportunity to comment. The Council restated its objections that there was insufficient information within the evidence to demonstrate that the correct measures would be taken at the construction stage to ensure the tree’s longevity. In response, the appellant has suggested that a detailed site specific statement will only be provided by the builder in consultation with the arborculturalist following a grant of planning permission. 10. I acknowledge that the arboricultural advice allows a degree of flexibility on the construction methods and sets down general principles to be followed within the proposed development, together with intended conditions. However, in assessing any work that has the potential to affect a protected tree, I must balance its value against any potential risk. Given its protected status and contribution to the area, its value is significant. In this instance, given the potential impingement into a substantial portion of the root protection area, the proposed works could significantly affect the tree’s health. Without more specific information as to the construction methods, I am not convinced that such a risk could be reasonably avoided. Moreover, due to the proximity of the tree to the work area and the additional costs borne by specific protection methods, I am not satisfied that a post-permission condition requiring these details would be suitable. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3207832 3 11. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with the Council’s development plan, incorporating Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) (2012) Policies CS1, CS5 and CS7, and Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) (2012) DM01, which together require that development is of a high design quality that maintains local distinctiveness, and maintains the environment through the protection of trees, amongst other considerations. Other issue 12. An objection was received from a neighbour regarding the proposed works. However, given that I am dismissing the appeal, I have not included any discussion of its contents within this letter. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. G Rollings INSPECTOR