Single-storey rear basement extension with extended roof terrace above and new staircase down to the garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 July 2025 by D Wilson BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 August 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000150 Minnis, 7 Belmont Close, Whetstone, Barnet, London N20 8QT • 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 Casey & Sadlier against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/4052/HSE. • The development proposed is single-storey rear basement extension with extended roof terrace above and new staircase down to the garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area and host property, and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 Belmont Close with regard to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal building is a two-storey dwelling located in a predominantly residential area. The rear garden is at a lower level than the house and as such, there is a small terrace on the ground floor as well as a basement. 4. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance1 states that with regard to basement extensions, that these should not extend to the rear by more than 3m. The existing basement already exceeds this and with the proposed works it would be over 6m in depth with the entirety of the basements roof being used for a terrace. The Residential Design Guidance also states that any exposed area of basement should be subordinate to the property being extended. 5. The overall size of the basement and terrace area, through the significant depth would be a substantial addition to the property which would be incongruous and unsympathetic to the host property. I note views of the proposal would not be possible from the front; however, views would likely be possible from neighbouring properties, particularly of the terrace. In any case, limited views would not provide a reason for allowing the appeal. 1 Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 Appeal Decision 6000150 2 6. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and host property. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CS5 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document September 2012 (CS), Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012 (DMP), Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Council’s Residential Design Guidance. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness, represent high quality design and add to the overall quality of the area. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 7. The rear garden has the benefit of an existing terrace which allows for a degree of overlooking into the neighbouring garden of No 6. However, the section of the terrace nearest the boundary of No 6 is narrow and therefore limits the functionality and usability of this space. 8. The proposed development would substantially increase the size of the terrace, creating a much more usable and functional space. The occupiers could also locate seating on the boundary with the No 6 which would not have been previously possible and would increase the potential for overlooking. 9. I note that the appellant has spoken with the occupiers of No 6 and they are happy with the proposed development. However, I must have regard to future occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 with regard to privacy. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS5 of the CS, Policy DM01 of DMP, Paragraph 135 of the Framework and the and the Council’s Residential Design Guidance. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments allow for adequate privacy for adjoining occupiers. Other Matter 11. I note that the appellant considers that the Council gave a positive opinion on the proposed development during the site visit, and this was later changed. However, I am only in a position to consider the proposal before me for which I have found to be unacceptable. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. D Wilson INSPECTOR