Part single, part two storey side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2024 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 December 2024 Appeal Ref: 6000008 83 Uphill Road, Mill Hill, Barnet, London NW7 4QD • 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 Brian Giandoni against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/1511/HSE. • The development proposed is part single, part two storey side and rear extensions. Alterations and extensions to roof including 1no. front dormer window, 2no. side dormer windows and 2no. rooflights to both side elevations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description of development suggested by the Council and agreed by the appellant as it more accurately describes the proposal than the description entered on the application form. 3. The Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan. The review is at an advanced stage; however, its policies will be of limited weight in the context of the main issues of the appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of those who occupy the adjacent dwellings. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The existing dwelling is on a road that is characterised by large mid-20th century dwellings, that are mostly individually designed, set back from the road, and on generously sized plots. Many dwellings have been redeveloped or rebuilt recently. As a result, the architectural styles are mixed, although consistencies remain in terms of overall scale and building lines. Dwellings are detached, and gaps between them are important to retain a rhythm of individual dwellings and give an opportunity to view other features such as mature trees growing in rear gardens, which contributes to a sense of spaciousness. Appeal Decision 6000008 2 6. The existing dwelling has a substantial footprint. However, owing to its low eaves to the front and single front facing first floor window, it has a modest cottage-like scale. It contributes to the character and appearance of the area in its current form, and the generous gap at first floor between it and its southerly neighbour is a positive characteristic – serving to break up the mass of built form. The proposal would see the dwelling radically altered. It would be tantamount to a full replacement, and would leave no trace of its existing form or scale. 7. Whilst the outcome would be a dwelling that would be similar to many of the redeveloped plots nearby, it would extend right up to its southerly boundary and as a result the gap between it and the dwelling to the south would be substantially less. Reducing this gap would limit the existing outlook from the street and would make the streetscene more developed, especially as the massing of the dwelling would be substantially increased by the proposal. 8. The change to the massing of the existing dwelling and its extension to the south to close the gap between it and its neighbour would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area that includes the existing sense of spaciousness. 9. The Council also refers to the harmful impacts at the rear. Although the proposal would see the dwelling substantially extended at the rear, the impact of these extensions would only be felt by a few immediate neighbours. Extending at the rear would have little impact on the character and appearance of the wider area. 10. In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021, Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document September 2012 (CS), and Policy DM01 Development Management Policies Development Plan Document September 2012 (DPD). Together these Policies seek to ensure that development is well designed and positively responds to local distinctiveness and character. Living conditions 11. The dwelling is to the southwest of no. 85 Uphill Road. Currently the extensions at the rear of no. 85 step back at first floor level to broadly align with those at the rear of the appeal property, in a neighbourly fashion. The proposal would see this relationship change significantly, as the rearward extensions would extend out considerably alongside the boundary with this neighbour, and owing to its orientation would cast shade upon the neighbouring dwelling and its immediate environs. 12. The submissions show that the proposal would not cross a 45 degree line measured from a first floor window. The closer window is a bathroom window, and this would not normally be subject to such an assessment. However, the proposal would be close to this window and extend out significantly from it, thus reducing levels of natural light that serve this room. It is therefore an aspect of the proposal’s impact that weighs against it. 13. No assessment is carried out in relation to the ground floor lantern light. The proposal would reduce daylight and outlook for this opening as a result of its scale and proximity, and it is reasonable to assume that the lantern light is an Appeal Decision 6000008 3 necessary feature given the deep floor plan of this neighbouring dwelling. The impact on daylight reaching the bathroom window would add to this adverse effect, and there would also be an impact on levels of light reaching the neighbour’s patio. Additional harm would arise from the mass of the proposal in such close proximity to the neighbour and the boundary, which would reduce outlook and lead to a sense of feeling hemmed in. For these reasons the proposal would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. 14. With regard to the proposed relationship with the other neighbour – no. 81 Uphill Road – the two storey elements of the proposal would be appropriately stepped back to create a neighbourly relationship and ensure that they are not overbearing. The single storey extensions on this side would be similar to the existing, and in any case the impact would be less owing to the orientation as the proposal would not result in the loss of light, which is an impact that contributes to a poor neighbourly relationship. 15. In summary, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 85 Uphill Road. It would be contrary to Policy CS5 of the CS and Policy DM01 of the DPD. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals should be well designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for all users. Conclusion 16. For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Tucker INSPECTOR