Side extension and general refurbishment works to the existing house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2019 by R Norman BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3219379 87 Puller Road, Barnet EN5 4HQ • 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 James Partington against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 18/4006/HSE, dated 13 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 October 2018. • The development proposed is a side extension and general refurbishment works to the existing house. 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 the host property. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located along Puller Road which is a residential street with dwellings along either side of the road. The existing dwellings have a degree of uniformity with a number of traditional terraced properties with front bay window features. However, there are some variations in design and scales present which contribute to an attractive and mixed street scene. The host property is somewhat more modest that many of the other properties and has a simple and attractive appearance. 4. The proposed extension would be located to the side of the existing property and would provide a larger dining room, bathroom and bedroom with en-suite. The Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (SPD) advises that side extensions should not be more than half the width of the original house. No 87 is a modest property, with a width of around 4 metres, and accordingly the proposed width of the extension would exceed this amount. 5. However, the existing dwelling is located adjacent to the side boundary with Nos 89/91 which results in ample space between the existing dwelling and the other side boundary to accommodate a wider extension. Given the modest width of the existing property a side extension which met the requirements of the SPD would be limited in the amount of floor space achieved and given the 2 position of the dwelling within the site, a larger width of extension could be accommodated without harm to the host property in this instance. 6. Whilst the proposed extension would be set down from the ridge of the host property and would be set back from the front elevation, it would nevertheless introduce a dominant addition to the existing dwelling. The proposed shallow pitch and its height would relate somewhat awkwardly with the existing roof of the dwelling and would contrast with the prevailing character of the area. The inclusion of the narrow first floor window to the front elevation would highlight the incongruity of the development. Similarly, the side elevation of the proposal would have a shallow roofscape with large area of rendered brickwork and only one small window opening to break up this dominant element. This would conflict with the more traditional character of the appeal site and the surroundings. 7. I note that Puller Road hosts some variety in dwelling designs, however all are reasonably traditional in terms of design and fenestration. Accordingly, the variation in existing designs would not sufficiently alleviate the visual impact of the development. The use of render to reflect the existing property, the replacement of the UPVC windows and the retention of the off-street parking would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the character of the area as a result of the design of the proposed extension. Although there may have been a structure in this location historically, this does not override the design concerns in this instance. 8. I acknowledge that the Appellant wishes to do a more modern extension rather than a pastiche addition. The Appellant notes that the roof design could be amended however this would be likely to represent a material change in the scheme that would result in the need for a new application to be submitted to the Council to allow for the necessary consultations to take place. 9. Consequently, I find that for the above reasons, the overall scale and design of the proposed extension would be out of keeping with, and harmful to, the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The development therefore fails to comply with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (2012) and Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012). These seek to achieve high quality design which respects the appearance, scale, mass, height, pattern and local context of the surrounding area, amongst other things. Other Matters 10. I note the Appellant’s issues with the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter for me to conclude upon and would be for the Appellant to discuss directly with the Council. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R Norman INSPECTOR