Single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 September 2019 by Thomas Courtney BA(Hons) MA Decision by P J Davies BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th November 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/19/3232524 23 Gloucester Grove, Edgware HA8 0ER • 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 & Mrs A Roche against the decision of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 19/0868/HSE, dated 14 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 11 April 2019. • The development proposed is a single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side and rear extension at 23 Gloucester Grove, Edgware, HA8 0ER in accordance with the terms of application Ref 19/0868/HSE, dated 14 February 2019 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Drawing No. 18/9/01 Rev G. 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. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Watling Estate Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property comprises a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling located on the southern side of Gloucester Road within the Watling Estate Conservation Area (the ‘Conservation Area’). It features black stained timber weatherboarding, brick plinths, clay pantiles, and a hipped roof. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/19/3232524 2 5. The Conservation Area covers a large residential area to the east of Burnt Oak underground station, and its significance lies in part in the distinctive layout and appearance of the buildings within it. Indeed, the area is reflective of the Garden City movement characterised by wide green verges, open spaces, small blocks of symmetrical short terraces set back from one another that incorporate Arts & Crafts design elements. 6. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. In this respect national policy on heritage assets, which includes conservation areas, is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At paragraph 185, it sets out matters which should be taken into account including sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 7. The proposal would result in a single storey side and rear extension with a pitched roof and three raised rooflights. Although the total depth of the extension would be greater than the depth of the existing dwelling and would considerably increase its footprint, it would still be set back from the front of the dwelling and would only project by 3 metres from the existing rear wall. I do not find that this would be disproportionate. Also, as it is only single storey, it would clearly be subservient to the host dwelling and would not be visually dominating. I find it would complement the existing house as the roof would replicate the existing pitched roof and the proposed cladding would match the existing distinctive materials which contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area. 8. Given the above, the proposed extension would not feature prominently in the street scene and would not appear as a bulky façade. The wrap-around design is innocuous and would not disrupt the distinctive building line. Furthermore, although the Council highlights that side to rear wrap-around extensions are not a feature of the area, I observed many of such extensions in the immediate area including those at 17 and 19 Gloucester Grove. The Council states that these existing extensions are exceptional and detrimental to the character of the area, however, other similar extensions are visible at 43 Gloucester Grove, on Gervase Road, Waitling Avenue, and on Trevor Road. I also observed a similar wrap-around extension being constructed at No. 18, directly opposite the appeal site. Therefore, the proposed development would not appear incongruous in the immediate area. 9. I note the Council’s reference to an appeal at 98 Fortescue Road. I do not have the full details of this scheme however it is not directly comparable as the proposal in that case included a front extension. Whilst the Inspector refers to the conjoined nature of the extensions, it is evident that the scheme was considered as a whole. It therefore does not alter my decision which has been reached on the individual merits of this case. 10. I conclude the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Watling Estate Conservation Area. It would therefore not conflict with policies CSNPPF and CS1 of Barnet’s Core Strategy Local Plan (2012) (the ‘Core Strategy’), policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (the ‘local plan’) which together seek to ensure proposals are well designed and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/19/3232524 3 in which they lie. It would also adhere to the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document and would not conflict with policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and policy DM06 of the local plan, the Watling Estate Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement Document, and guidance in the NPPF which together seek to ensure heritage assets are preserved and enhanced. Conditions 11. I have considered the suggested conditions against the advice in the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plan in order to provide certainty. I have also included a condition requiring the external materials match the existing building, to preserve the character and appearance of the Watling Estate Conservation Area. Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Thomas Courtney APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. P J Davies INSPECTOR