Two storey rear and side extension with raised platform to rear

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: 5 December 2024 Appeal Ref: 6000010 85 Laurel Way, Whetstone, Barnet, London N20 8HT • 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 Nima Tahouri against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/2887/HSE. • The development proposed is two storey rear and side extension with raised platform to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for two storey rear and side extension with raised platform to rear, at 85 Laurel Way, Whetstone, Barnet, London N20 8HT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2887/HSE, and 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: 531124-1, 531124-2, 531124-3, and 531124-4. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The flat roof of the extension hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with the repair and maintenance of the building and shall at no time be converted to or used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area. 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the east or west elevations of the extensions hereby approved. Preliminary Matter 2. 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 issue of the appeal. Appeal Decision 6000010 2 Main Issue 3. The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, no. 87 Laurel Way. Reasons 4. The proposal is a modestly amended scheme, following permission that was granted at appeal1. In the approved scheme the west facing elevation of the single storey extension was pitched at the top, to reduce the impact on the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. The appeal proposes a modification to this arrangement that would do away with the pitch by forming a full height wall to the side of the extension, where it would abut the boundary with the neighbour. This is largely proposed on the basis that planning permission has been received for the neighbouring dwelling to be extended in a similar manner, which would make the pitched arrangement unnecessary. 5. Construction of the rear extension to the neighbouring dwelling – no. 87 – has not commenced. Accordingly, I need to assess the proposal on the basis of the current situation as there can be no guarantee that the scheme permitted at the neighbouring house will be carried out. 6. The proposal would see a single storey extension formed alongside the boundary with this neighbour. It would be 6 metres deep, which is well beyond the dimensions that are normally considered acceptable in the Council’s design guide2. Partly pitching the side of the extension would lessen its bulk when viewed from the neighbour. However, the pitched part would be glazed and although it would not be possible to look from the inside of the extension towards the neighbouring garden level, it could still give the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling a sense of feeling overlooked. Additionally, the plans suggest that it would be easy to look down from neighbouring first floor windows into the proposed extension. For these reasons the approved scheme would not create a neighbourly relationship. 7. The proposal would see a more conventional arrangement with a solid side to the proposed extension facing the neighbour. Although the extension would be long, it would be at a lower level than the neighbour owing to the different levels of the gardens. Additionally, the gardens here are long and of a generous width. Furthermore, they are orientated to the south, so even with the extension in place the occupiers of the neighbouring garden would enjoy direct sunlight into the garden during the main parts of the day. The generous size of the garden would ensure that those occupying the neighbouring dwelling would not feel hemmed in. 8. Therefore, whilst the proposal would have some impact on the living conditions of those who occupy the neighbouring dwelling there are several mitigating factors that mean that the impact would not be significant. 9. I can thus conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling. It would accord with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document September 2012 and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan 1 Appeal ref: APP/N5090/D/24/3337326 2 Barnet Borough Council Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 Appeal Decision 6000010 3 Document September 2012. Together these Policies seek to ensure that development proposals should be well designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for all users. Conditions 10. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered these against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition to specify the approved plans to give certainty, and a condition to ensure that the proposal does not harm the character or appearance of the area. I have imposed conditions to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings to either side, to prevent the use of the flat roof as a balcony and the formation of any additional windows on the side elevations. 11. I have not imposed a condition to require details of privacy screens as none are shown on the submitted plans, and there is nothing before me to suggest that they are necessary. Regarding the obscurely glazed window to the side elevation, I have not imposed a condition to specifically require this as it is clearly shown on the approved plans (drawing no. 531124-4). Conclusion 12. For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed. A Tucker INSPECTOR