Ground floor and first floor rear extension and skylight on the top roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 January 2019 by R J Jackson BA MPhil DMS MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3214228 20 Flower Lane, Mill Hill, London NW7 2JE  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 Keith Keshwar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 18/3346/HSE, dated 31 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 July 2018.  The development proposed is ground floor and first floor rear extension and skylight on the top roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The Council has referred to “the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2016)” in one of the two reasons for refusal and to “the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013)” in the other. I have been provided with two documents both entitled “Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance” one dated April 2013 and the other October 2016. 3. While I have not been through the documents comprehensively they appear to be very similar, having similar contents. Although not explicitly stated that the 2016 version has superseded the 2013 version this is a reasonable assumption and I have therefore only used the 2016 version in making this decision. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect on:  the character and appearance of the area and the existing dwelling; and  the living conditions of the occupiers of 18 and 22 Flower Lane, in terms of outlook and overbearing effect. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling with a low pitched roof. To the rear is a service road providing access to a row of garages set at a Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3214228 2 slightly lower level with the level change taking place gradually from the rear of the appeal property. Rear access is gained to the appeal property through one of these garages. Further to the west is a cul-de-sac of development in Stanhope Gardens. 6. The proposal is for a part single, part two storey rear extension, with the single storey element extending further into the existing rear garden of the appeal property than the upper floor. The extension would be the width of the property. The first floor elements would be stepped with the proposal extending further away from the rear elevation on the southern side adjacent to No 22 than that on the north side adjacent to No 18. Both the single and two storey elements would have flat roofs. 7. The Council has referred to its Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (the SPD). This indicates that high quality design solutions help to make new places in Barnet which can add to and complement the existing suburban character. This is in line with Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (the DMP) which seeks high quality design. Consequently I am able to give the SPD significant weight. 8. The Council objects to the proposal on the basis of its size, principally its depth, and its design. On the former of these the SPD (paragraph 14.21) indicates that for terraced properties only a 3.0 m rear extension is normally considered acceptable. The ground floor element would extend approximately 3.8 m from the rear elevation of the property. The SPD then goes on to explain in the following paragraph that the reason for the depth restriction is so as not to cause a significant sense of enclosure, or loss of outlook from, or light to principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. This reasoning relates predominantly to the second main issue which I will discuss below. 9. The depth of such an extension is also restricted in the SPD so that an extension does not appear bulky or result in a too small garden space, or where there is a change in levels between dwellings. Due to the size relative to the dwelling and the remaining garden, and the small level change to No 22 none of these applies to the appeal proposal. While nearly as deep as half that of the house, there would be sufficient space so that the proposal would not represent an overdevelopment of the site. 10. However, the SPD goes on in paragraph 14.26 to indicate that flat roofs on two storey extensions are not normally acceptable because they do not relate sympathetically to the house. While the first floor elements are not large they would have flat roofs and would appear box like and out of keeping with the design character and the appearance of the appeal property with its pitched roof. The extension could not be readily seen from the public domain through a mixture of distance, vegetation and the intervening garages. However this does not mean that this is a reason to allow poor design as this situation could be repeated too often. As paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. This poor design would be harmful to the character and appearance of both the existing dwelling and the area more generally. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3214228 3 11. Therefore the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and that of the existing dwelling. As such it would be contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS 1 and CS 5 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (the CS) which seek to improve the environmental conditions in Barnet, and create a quality environment and buildings of high quality design. It would also be contrary to Policy DM01 of the DMP as set out above, and the relevant design policies of the London Plan. Finally it would be contrary to paragraphs 127 and 130 of the Framework which seek to ensure developments are visually attractive and as set out above. Living conditions 12. Both Nos 18 and 22 are of similar design to the appeal property and have windows at ground and first floor levels facing the rear garden. Currently there is fencing on either side of the garden with both properties. 13. The Council states that the two storey element would be 3.8 m deep, but this is not correct as the first floor element is set back from the ground floor element. The appellant cites this distance as 1.8 m, but it is not clear whether this is the side adjacent to No 18 or No 22 since they are not level. 14. While the proposed ground floor element would be longer than the 3.0 m distance advocated in the SPD it would not result in an overbearing effect or loss of outlook for the occupiers of either of the adjoining properties given the existing boundary treatments and the height of the proposal. The first floor elements would be noticeably of less depth. The gardens are not particularly narrow and there would be sufficient space around the proposal so as to ensure that the outlook from both adjoining properties would not be significantly harmed and that the proposal would not result in a material loss of light to the occupiers of either adjoining property. 15. That being the case, the proposal would ensure a high standard of living conditions for the occupiers of Nos 18 and 22. As such it would comply with Policies CS NPPF, CS 1 and CS 5 of the CS as set out above, and would comply with Policy DM01 of the DMP as set out above, and would comply with the principles of the SPD as set out above. It would also comply with paragraph 127 of the Framework that seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other matters 16. The appellant has referred to the agreed position that the principle of the development is acceptable and that this should be given weight. This may be the case, but this is of little weight when compared to the detailed matters I have set out above. 17. The appellant has also referred to a number of other proposals that have been granted planning permission. However, I do not have full details of these nor the development plan policies that were applicable at the time. In any event proposals of this nature are often very site specific. I therefore can only give these examples very limited weight. Conclusion 18. I have concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of either of the adjoining properties and it Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3214228 4 would be of such a size that it would be subordinate to the original property. However, the first floor flat roof is such that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area more generally and would represent poor design. In line with development plan and national planning policies such a proposal should therefore be refused. 19. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R J Jackson INSPECTOR