Single storey side and rear extension, new front porch, and erection of rear outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2019 by Euan FS Pearson BA(Hons) BTP FRGS MRICS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:9 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3214764 98 Fortescue Road, Edgeware HA8 0HN • 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 Rumona Chowdhury against the decision of London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 18/3891/HSE, dated 21 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2018. • The development proposed is single storey side and rear extension, new front porch, and erection of rear outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether the development would preserve or enhance the Watling Estate Conservation Area. Preliminary Matters 3. There is a difference between the description in the application form and that used by the Council in its decision notice. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the description shown in the Council's decision notice, as used on the appeal form as it more accurately describes the development applied for. 4. I observed during the site visit that the porch, and side and rear extension were substantially complete and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two storey dwellinghouse at the end of the terrace (Nos.88-98) of interwar houses, within the Watling Estate Conservation Area. Modern development and uncoordinated residential extensions generally do not feature along Fortescue Road. 6. The Watling Estate Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement 2007 explains that the character of Watling Estate is distinctive in terms of its layout, form, scale and consistent building designs, typical of Garden City planning. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3214764 2 7. There is a degree of symmetry to the front and rear of the small terraces and a balance to the recessed blocks around greens and turned corners. The combinations of these elements are consistent with the vernacular architectural style of the Arts and Crafts movement and help reinforce a sense of community. These distinctive characteristics make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 8. The small front porch and extensions to the side and rear of the appeal property have already been added. The side and rear extensions run beyond the length and breadth of the original dwellinghouse. 9. There is a gap of about 8m between the appeal property and neighbouring corner property (No. 100). The conjoined extensions are visible from the public realm. The side extension, almost 10m long with only a single door opening, represents an incongruous bulky façade that has little respect for the architectural vernacular or symmetry of the Terrace. 10. The extensions are conjoined enlarging the footprint of the host property by almost 90%. The proposed extensions are not diminutive, altering the scale, design, character and appearance of the appeal property. These overwhelm the appeal property dominating the appearance of the building and causing material harm to the character of the building and the wider area. 11. Similarly, the proposal conflicts with the design principles in Section 14 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016); or the management proposals in the Watling Estate Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement. Creating high quality buildings and places is a planning fundamental in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the Framework). 12. The statutory duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is of considerable weight and importance. Having regard to the above, I conclude the proposal would harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area (the CA) and as such would harm the character or appearance of the CA as a designated heritage asset, even though, in the words of the Framework, that harm would be less than substantial. This weighs significantly against the proposal. 13. Taking all of the above into account, the proposal conflicts with London Plan policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8; policy CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy); and policies DM01 and DM06 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies). Among other things, these require developments to exhibit a high standard of design that respects local context, and seeks to ensure that it does not cause harm to Barnet’s heritage assets. Other Matters 14. The appellant has submitted photographs of four properties, two showing side and rear extensions. It is not in dispute that there are examples in other parts of the CA. I have taken this into account. The presence of larger extensions is not, however, widespread and does not change my conclusions on the specific harm I have identified arising from the appeal proposal. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3214764 3 Conclusion 15. The Framework states at paragraph 193 that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset irrespective of the degree of harm. Paragraph 196 of the Framework also states that where less than substantial harm occurs, this must be weighed against public benefit. In this case no public benefit has been advanced which would outweigh the harm which I have identified. 16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Euan FS Pearson INSPECTOR