Erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2019 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSC MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/19/3228005 85 Lyonsdown Road, New Barnet, Barnet, EN5 1JT • 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 Jeremy Killen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 18/7424/HSE, dated 14 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 February 2019. • The development proposed is erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part single, part two storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory at 85 Lyonsdown Road, New Barnet, Barnet, EN5 1JT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/7424/HSE, dated 14 December 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, lyonsdownrd-85/0, lyonsdownrd-85/1 Rev A, lyonsdownrd-85/3 Rev A, lyonsdownrd-85/5, lyonsdownrd-85/5A, lyonsdownrd-85/6 Rev A, lyonsdownrd-85/6A Rev A, lyonsdownrd-85/8 Rev A, 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed two storey rear extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a large detached dwelling of individual character and design set on a very large plot in a street of other large detached and semi- Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/19/3228005 2 detached dwellings, many also of individual design. It is rendered and painted white and has a distinctive green tiled roof which, to the rear, is characterised by hipped projections. Two central projections surmount a pair of wide curved bays with a smaller, set back projection above what is understood to be an earlier side extension. 4. The proposed extensions include a single storey addition with pitched roof behind the existing curved bays. The Council considers that this part of the proposal would be acceptable. In addition, an existing conservatory with a depth of some 4m would be replaced. The Council has no objection to a single storey extension on the footprint of the conservatory and its objection relates only to the proposed first floor element. I shall therefore restrict my further consideration to the first floor element of the proposed two storey extension. 5. The proposed two storey extension would share a rear building line with the single storey extension but would project beyond the existing first floor bays by some 1.8m. It would be narrower than the curved bays but would have a similar, gently curving profile, a matching eaves height and a similar but lower roof profile. The Council is concerned that the lower roof and lack of any clear gap between the two storey extension and the existing first floor bays would appear cramped and at odds with the existing design. 6. However, the rearward projection would provide visual separation between the two elements and the narrower width and lower roof would ensure that the extension appeared subservient to the host dwelling. Moreover, there is no gap between the hipped roof over the earlier first floor extension and the adjacent roof over the nearest curved bay. There would thus be balance between the various elements with the existing central gap drawing the focus of attention to the original bays and maintaining their sense of importance. In addition, the stepped alignment of the rear first floor elevation would ensure that the projection of the proposed first floor extension integrated with the design and flow of host dwelling. 7. Overall I am satisfied that the scale and design of the proposed two storey rear extension and in particular the first floor element would ensure it was sympathetic to the host dwelling, did not appear unduly bulky or otherwise disproportionate and did not lead to an overdevelopment of the plot. It would respect the original building in terms of form and architecture and would be substantially hidden from outside the site. It is therefore concluded on the main issue that the proposed two storey rear extension would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. 8. In consequence, the proposed extensions as a whole would comply with Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy), 2012, Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies), 2012 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance, 2016, which taken together expect new development to represent high quality design that respects, preserves or enhances local context and distinctive local character in terms of architectural style, scale, mass and pattern of surrounding buildings. 9. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, the Council suggests two further conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/19/3228005 3 with the approved plans and using materials which match the external surfaces of the existing building. I agree that these are necessary to ensure certainty and to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 10. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR