Part single, part two storey rear extension with 2no. roof lanterns and 2no. rooflights. (Amended plans and proposals.) Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2025 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 April 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000037 33 Westbrook Crescent, New Barnet Barnet EN4 9AS • 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 Shkelqim Nimani against the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/3039/HSE. • The development proposed is part single, part two storey rear extension with 2no. roof lanterns and 2no. rooflights. (Amended plans and proposals.) Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application was made in the name of Mr Dashamir Lumaj and the agent is identified as Mr Shkelqim Nimani. Subsequently, Mr Damashir Lumaj has confirmed that Mr Shkelqim Nimani is acting on behalf of them and the appeal proceeds on this basis. 3. The description of the development on the application form is: ‘Proposed single storey 5m rear extension; Proposed part 3m 1st floor extension. - Loft Conversion: Full width rear dormer and 2 velux windows to the front elevation.’ The appellant advises that the description was changed during the application process because the local planning authority (‘LPA’) requested some changes to be made because the proposed alterations to the roof were considered permitted development and an amendment was made to the first floor roof of the proposed extension (‘amended proposal’). The LPA determined the appeal on the basis of the amended proposal and my Decision reflects this. 4. During my visit, I observed that the roof alterations in the form of the rear dormer had been considerably advanced. Therefore, my assessment of the appeal includes this. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appeal property and character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The appeal site comprises a two storey, semi-detached dwelling and associated amenity space. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and comprises two-storey, semi-detached dwellings, most of which have single storey rear extensions, and some which of have rear dormers. Appeal Decision: 6000037 2 7. In addition, the appellant has referred me to examples of other rear extensions in the area, which incorporate first floor elements. Therefore, and whilst the LPA has suggested that other larger ground floor and first floor extensions were allowed under different circumstances, these still inform the character and appearance of the area. 8. The proposal is for a part single and part two-storey rear extension. The single storey part of the proposed extension, would be about 5m deep, which exceeds the 3.5m depth for rear extensions to semi-detached houses, as set out in the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 (‘Design SPD’). However, the Design SPD is guidance and does state that on widely spaced semi-detached or detached houses, there may be more scope for larger rear extensions. 9. In this case the adjoining property at 35 Westbrook Crescent, already incorporates a single storey extension and the proposed single storey extension would not significantly project beyond the rear of this existing extension. The dwelling on the other side (31 Westbrook Crescent) is separated by the width of an existing access. As such, because of this widely spaced arrangement relative to this property and the existing extension at 35 Westbrook Crescent, the single storey part of the proposed extension, despite its depth would not result in any significant sense of enclosure, loss of outlook and light for neighbouring properties. 10. Similarly, the two-storey part of the proposed extension, because of its separation from neighbouring properties and limited depth, the proposed two-storey element, would not result in any unacceptable impact on neighbours. 11. In the context of the surrounding area, the existing property which incorporates a dormer and retains a sizeable garden, the proposed extension would not be unduly bulky or prominent. 12. Nevertheless, the first floor part of the proposed extension incorporates a gabled roof form and although on the amended proposal this is shown projecting off the original roof slope of the appeal property, if this appeal succeeds it is more than likely that this would extend off the ‘as built’ roof form, which now incorporates a rear dormer. In particular, the gabled roof of the proposed first floor extension would be attached to and would obscure part of the dormer. This uncharacteristic arrangement reflects poor design and would harm the appearance of the appeal property and detracts from the character and appearance of the area, where in general first floor rear extensions remain separate from dormers. 13. I am aware that the appellant has amended the design of the roof of the first floor part of the extension based on the LPAs advice and an alternative design exists for this as shown on the original drawings submitted with the application. Even so, and for the reasons already given, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the amended proposal. 14. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (September 2012) and Policy CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Together, these policies require proposals to be of high quality that preserve or enhance local character. Appeal Decision: 6000037 3 Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed M Aqbal INSPECTOR