New rear dormer to include bedroom with ensuite and associated front dormer to accommodate new internal stair

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2025 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000086 73 Green Lane, Barnet, Edgware HA8 7PZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Dinesh Pari against the decision of the Council of the Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/4369/HSE. • The development proposed is new rear dormer to include bedroom with ensuite and associated front dormer to accommodate new internal stair. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new rear dormer to include bedroom with ensuite and associated front dormer to accommodate new internal stair at 73 Green Lane, Barnet, Edgware HA8 7PZ, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 24/4369/HSE and subject to the following conditions: 1) This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings: Site Location and Layout Plan – Drawing: MiL-PL-001A Rev A; Proposed Plans: Drawings: MiL-PL-004A Rev 01 and MiL-PL-005A Rev 01 and Proposed Elevations – Drawing: MiL-PL - 006A, Rev 01. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials that match those of the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling. The surrounding area is characterised by similar two-storey semi-detached dwellings and some detached dwellings. 4. Most of these properties include front projecting gables, which incorporate entrances and a mock Tudor finish. These provide a degree of symmetry between pairs of dwellings and a general cohesiveness to the street scene. Appeal Decision 6000086 2 5. However, some of these properties, including the appeal property and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling have been subject to some alterations and extensions to the sides. As such, and beyond the projecting mock Tudor gables there are some differences in respect of the front elevations, including the roofs of these properties. From the rear garden of the appeal property, I observed that nearby dwellings have also been altered along their rear elevations and some feature sizeable rear dormers. 6. Consequently, the appearance of the appeal property and other nearby dwellings has been personalised to some extent, which also informs the character and appearance of the area. 7. To facilitate the proposed bedroom with ensuite, the main elements of the proposal include front and rear dormer extensions. 8. The front dormer would only extend about halfway down the front roof slope of the appeal property and is designed to be setback from this. Although this dormer would result in an increased ridge height, this would be limited to only part of the roof and does not exceed the existing maximum ridge height of the appeal property. In terms of its appearance, this dormer would largely be finished in tiles to match the existing roof and features a relatively small window. 9. Therefore, and despite being visible from Green Lane, because of its modest size and acceptable appearance, the front dormer would be a subordinate and subtle addition to the roof of the appeal property. This would not unduly detract from the overall form and appearance of the appeal property or unacceptably compromise the extent of symmetry between this and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. Consequently, and although front dormers are not a prevalent feature of the immediate area, due to its considered scale and design, the proposed front dormer would not undermine the wider street scene. 10. Whilst the proposed rear dormer would also increase the ridge height of part of the main roof, this would also not extend above the maximum ridge height of the appeal property. Furthermore, this rear dormer would be set in from the sides and eaves of the rear roof and marginally exceeds half the width of the existing roof. This width of the rear dormer aligns with the windows below. Also, its half hipped form limits its massing and would complement the contemporary design of a planned ground floor rear extension. 11. Due to the above siting and design considerations, the rear dormer would be a proportionate addition to the appeal property, which would assimilate with its rear roof form and elevation. 12. Consequently, the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed dormers would not detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property or area. In undertaking my assessment of the appeal scheme and reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Design Guidance, which includes advice on the design of dormer extensions. 13. For the above reasons, the proposal accords with Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document, September 2012. Amongst other things, this Policy says that development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. That proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the Appeal Decision 6000086 3 appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets. Conditions 14. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans and drawings in the interests of certainty. 15. To ensure that the development positively contributes to the appeal property and the character and appearance of the area, I have specified a condition requiring that the external materials for the proposal match those of the appeal property. Conclusion 16. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Aqbal INSPECTOR