Add first floor to existing single storey bungalow to create a 2 bedroom house
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Character & Appearance
Green Belt Policy
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 February 2025
by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12 February 2025
Appeal Ref: 6000020
27 Heywood Avenue, London NW9 5LN
• 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 Umesh Chhatralia of Sasen against the decision of The
Council of the London Borough of Barnet.
• The application Ref is 24/2681/HSE.
• The development proposed is add first floor to existing single storey bungalow to create
a 2 bedroom house.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan. Although not referred
to in its decision, copies of its policies are before me and they attract some
weight as the review is at an advanced stage.
3. On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning
Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issues of the appeal is
largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary for me to give the main
parties opportunity to comment on this matter.
4. Two versions of a proposed plan were submitted with the appeal. The Council
has confirmed that the appeal should be determined in accordance with
drawing no. PL03/Rev 1.
Application for costs
5. An application for costs was made by Mr Umesh Chhatralia of Sasen against
The Council of the London Borough of Barnet. This application is the subject of
a separate Decision.
Main Issues
6. The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and
appearance of the existing dwelling and area, and the living conditions of the
occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.
Reasons
Character and appearance
7. The existing dwelling stands in a residential area of mixed character. It marks a
point where several residential developments meet. Blocks of three and four
Appeal Decision 6000020
2
storey flats curve around the road to the east that have strong flat fronted and
squared forms. These contrast with the more conventional forms of the two
and three storey dwellings that are close to the site to the northwest and
southwest.
8. The existing dwelling is difficult to view from the public domain as it is low lying
and surrounded by tall fences. The site looks as though it is an area of garden
associated with an adjacent dwelling. With this in mind and owing to its low
profile and odd position the existing dwelling could easily be mistaken for an
outbuilding. The area around the appeal site has an open character and has the
appearance of a loosely defined open square, onto which all the surrounding 2-
4 storey buildings face. This sense of openness is enhanced by the substantial
number of mature trees that grow to the front of the buildings.
9. This arrangement would be significantly altered by the proposal, as the
additional storey would make the existing dwelling highly prominent to view. It
would occupy an odd position that would be unrelated to the alignment of any
of the adjacent dwellings and would appear out of place in this central open
area.
10. Additionally, it would have an unconventional and overly complex form. Part of
the extension would have a mono pitched roof, with an inconsistent eaves
height where it wraps around to face the road. To the front the extension would
utilise vertical walls to sit over the existing walls, with a flat roof. This would
result in a bulky and inelegant building, with a complex and incoherent form
that would be at odds and appear out of place in the context of the
straightforward forms of the surrounding buildings.
11. The extended dwelling would remain lower than the height of the adjacent
dwellings. However, this alone is a characteristic that would not be sufficient to
address its poor design and awkward position.
12. In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the
existing dwelling and the area. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London
Plan 2021 (LP), Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy 2012
(CS), Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies
2012 (DMP), and emerging Policies GSS01 and CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan
2024 (BLP). Together these Policies seek to secure good standards of design
that respects local context and distinctive local character.
Living conditions
13. The existing dwelling stands against a boundary that separates it from the
garden of no. 14 Fulbeck Drive. The proposal would result in a broad metal roof
facing towards this neighbour, with a relatively shallow depth of intervening
garden between the buildings. Outlook from the garden and rear of the
dwelling would be dominated by the proposed roof extension, and this impact
would be significant enough for the living conditions of the occupiers of this
dwelling to be adversely affected.
14. The dwellings to the southwest are further away from the appeal site. The
extended dwelling would face these dwellings side on, with a less expansive
area of metal roof that would be separated by the existing garages.
Accordingly, I do not consider the impact on the occupiers of these adjacent
dwellings to be harmful.
Appeal Decision 6000020
3
15. Direct overlooking from the proposed first floor would only be possible through
the elevations that face out over Heywood Avenue. Furthermore, the proposal’s
impact on daylight and sunlight would be acceptable, on the basis of the slope
of the proposed roof and its low eaves at the rear. However, these matters do
not lessen the adverse impact the proposal would have on outlook.
16. In summary, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the living conditions
of the occupiers of no. 14 Fulbeck Drive. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of
the LP, Policy CS5 of the CS, Policy DM01 of the DMP and emerging Policy
CDH01 of the BLP. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals
deliver appropriate and adequate outlook.
Conclusion
17. For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.
A Tucker
INSPECTOR
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.