Single Storey Rear and Side Wrap Around Extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Heritage & Conservation
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 7 July 2023
by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 17th August 2023
Appeal Reference: APP/N5090/D/23/3320757
19 Edrick Walk, Edgware HA8 9JA
• 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 K. Shirdel against the decision of Barnet London Borough
Council.
• The application (reference 23/0499/HSE, dated 6 February 2023) was refused by notice
dated 28 March 2023.
• The development proposed is described in the application form as a “Single Storey Rear
and Side Wrap Around Extension”.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a “Single Storey
Rear and Side Wrap Around Extension”, at 19 Edrick Walk, Edgware HA8 9JA,
in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 23/0499/HSE, dated
6 February 2023), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of
Conditions.
Main issue
2. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed
development on the character and appearance of the host building and its
surroundings.
Reasons
3. The appeal site is located in an established and extensive residential area at
Burnt Oak in the London Borough of Barnet, between Edgware, Mill Hill and
Colindale. The area has been designated as the Watling Estate Conservation
Area. It was laid out, essentially, between the two World Wars and residential
development predominates, together with a park, schools and other facilities,
including significant retail frontages in Watling Avenue and Deansbrook Road.
The housing was developed by the London County Council, reflecting Garden
City and Garden Suburb principles, and, in many ways, the Conservation Area
may be said to epitomise 1930s suburban ideals.
4. Within the vicinity of the appeal site, the houses are laid out in terraces
(sometimes quite short), with modest back gardens. The houses are set
behind small front gardens and the road layout includes some landscaped open
Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/23/3320757
2
spaces. The houses are designed in a traditional “Arts & Crafts” style with
thoughtful details that establish a local character. Trees and shrubs soften the
townscape. Nevertheless, the roads are rather narrow by modern standards
and the street pattern accommodates parked cars only with some difficulty.
5. Edrick Walk is a narrow roadway that links Edrick Road and the much busier
Deans Lane (the A5109). There is a small area of open space at the midpoint
of Edrick Walk that is partly used for formal or informal car parking but which
provides a pleasant open space. Short terraces of houses face the roadway.
6. The existing house at 19 Edrick Walk is a rather small house at the end of a
short terrace, standing forward of its neighbour at number 17. The house is
rendered externally, with a hipped roof and a dropped eaves on the front
elevation. The back garden has been reduced by the construction of an
outbuilding adjacent to the rear boundary and by a rear extension that was
under construction at the time of the site visit for the appeal. The remaining
garden area is now quite small in practice.
7. At the time of the site visit, a rear extension and a side extension were both
under construction, implementing a recent planning permission that had been
granted for the scheme. Now, however, it is proposed to add to the approved
scheme, by linking the side and rear extensions to form a “wrap around”
extension on the ground floor that would unite the whole and add to the living
accommodation.
8. Provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
impose obligations on those considering whether to grant planning permission
for development that would affect a conservation area. In such cases, decision
makers are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas affected by
development proposals.
9. Those formal requirements are reinforced by the ‘National Planning Policy
Framework’, especially at Section 16, which emphasises the importance of
conserving and enhancing the historic environment, though it also points out
the desirability of putting a heritage asset to its “optimum viable use” as does
the ‘Planning Practice Guidance’.
10. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ also emphasises the aim of “achieving
well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while
making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at
achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of
the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and
history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include
increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting
existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation.
11. An emphasis on the importance of good design is also to be found in the
Development Plan, for example at Policy D3 of ‘The London Plan’, which
emphasises a “design-led approach” and draws attention to the need to protect
and enhance heritage assets (including conservation areas).
12. Similarly, Policy CS5 of ‘Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy)’, dated September
2012, is focussed on achieving “high quality places”, while Policy DM01 of
Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/23/3320757
3
‘Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies)’, also dated
September 2012, provides more specific criteria, aimed at achieving high
quality design. Again, attention is drawn to the importance of heritage assets.
13. Attention has also been drawn to the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Documents, entitled ‘Residential Design Guidance’ (dated October 2016) which
also addresses relevant design criteria and considerations, although it does not
have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. The ‘Watling Estate
Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement’ (which was adopted in July
2007) is also material to the appeal and is useful and informative.
14. The proposed single-storey side extension would be visible from Edrick Walk,
especially in views from the east along the narrow road. The visual impact
would be very limited, nevertheless, especially by comparison with the scheme
that is under construction. Indeed, the combined “wrap around” single-storey
extension to the side and rear of the house would have only a very limited
impact on the streetscene. Nor would it have a materially harmful effect on the
outlook from nearby properties (or on other residential amenities).
15. It is true that the footprint of the existing house would be increased and that
this would be proportionately significant (bearing in mind that no first floor
extension is proposed as part of the project). Even so, I am convinced that the
mathematical increase in floor area would not have a significant impact on the
appearance of the two-storey house and that the proposed extension scheme
would not be unduly prominent or bulky in the townscape. In any case, the
extension would be in harmony with the original design and would preserve the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
16. Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is
“sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would make a
very useful addition to the accommodation at 19 Edrick Walk. The contribution
that the appeal scheme would make to the provision of residential
accommodation in the locality, even though it would be limited, weighs in
favour of the appeal. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict
with the Development Plan, in principle, and I am persuaded that the scheme
before me can properly be permitted, subject to conditions.
17. Although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the
representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.
18. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing
conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in
the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I
have concluded that standard conditions are necessary, to define the planning
permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.
Roger C. Shrimplin
INSPECTOR
Appeal Decision: APP/N5090/D/23/3320757
4
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this decision.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved drawings:
drawing no. EW19-03-1001 (marked “Revision 1st”) (Existing Plans);
drawing no. EW19-03-1002 (marked “Revision 1st”) (Existing Elevations);
drawing no. EW19-03-1003 (marked “Revision 1st”) (Proposed Plans);
drawing no. EW19-03-1004 (marked “Revision 1st”) (Proposed Elevations).
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.
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.