Creation of a roof incorporating 2 x rear dormer. Partial front ground floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 July 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24th July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000100 74 Downage, Hendon, Barnet, London NW4 1HP • 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 Avi Hotter against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/3938/HSE. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘The creation of a roof incorporating 2 x rear dormer. Partial front ground floor extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the creation of a roof incorporating 2 x rear dormer. Partial front ground floor extension at 74 Downage, Hendon, Barnet, London NW4 1HP in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/3938/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing numbers: 01A Site Location Plan; 03 Proposed Floor Plans; 05 Proposed Roof Plan; and 06 Proposed Elevations. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (LP) on 4 March 2025. This replaces the previous Local Plan referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal. The Council provided copies of Policies CDH04 and HOU03 of the LP which relate to tall buildings and residential conversions which are not relevant to the appeal proposal. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • Whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of the Grade II listed White House. Appeal Decision 6000100 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal dwelling is single storey with a flat roof. The addition of first floor accommodation within a pitched roof would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the dwelling and increase its prominence in the street. However the Residential Design Guidance1 states that proposals should take into account the established form of development along the street and complement the roof form of the surrounding area 5. Notwithstanding its former use as a garage, it is a dwelling in a street where the overriding character is that of two storey dwellings. The addition of first floor accommodation within a pitched roof would not appear out of character in this context. 6. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy CDH01 of the LP which requires that developments optimise site capacity and respond sensitively to distinctive local character and design including building form, scale, massing, roof form and height. Setting of the listed building 7. White House is a Grade II listed building located adjacent to the appeal site. It was built by Charles Evelyn Simmons in 1934-5 for Haymills Ltd, a leading building firm erecting fine quality houses in North London during the 1930’s. 8. Constructed in a Moderne style of architecture, it benefits from a distinguished and unaltered façade, consisting of rendered brick, flat asphalt roof and tall rendered stacks. The building is two storey with a roof-top sunroom and curved corners. It is an unusually large, early and imaginative example of a traditionally planned house from the 1930’s. It derives significance from its historical and architectural interest. 9. The setting of a listed building includes the surroundings in which it is experienced. To each side of the main house are single storey flat roof projections. These were added to the building later and do not in themselves have special interest. The one closest to the appeal site serves as a garage. This, together with the flat roof to the appeal dwelling, affords views from the street towards the side of the listed building. Given that White House is largely experienced from the street at the front of the building, I find that the appeal site is within the setting of the listed building. 10. The side of the listed building is fairly unremarkable although the flat roof and tall staircase window are key elements of the Moderne style of the building which are clearly visible across the appeal site. 11. Even with the addition of the proposed roof to the appeal dwelling, views of the listed building would still be possible from the street and the key elements of the side elevation I identified above, would not be obscured. The historic and architectural significance of the listed building could still be fully appreciated. The proposed alterations to the appeal building would be visible from the listed building but it would not affect the historical or architectural interest of the listed building. The impact of the proposed development on the setting of the listed building would therefore be a neutral one. 1 Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 Appeal Decision 6000100 3 12. In reaching this view, I have had regard to Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the special regard I should give to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 13. I find no conflict with Policy CDH08 of the LP which seeks to ensure that designated heritage assets including listed buildings are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. Other Matters 14. Full details of the proposal for a two storey dwelling on the appeal site which was refused by the Council in 19972 are not before me. In any event, this carries very limited weight in my consideration of this appeal as it was in excess of 27 years ago when different development plan policies would have prevailed. 15. The appeal decision relating to a site at the rear of 47 Downage3 was for the erection of a single storey dwelling on a plot which the Inspector described as ‘uncharacteristically small and thin’. It is not comparable to the proposal before me for additional accommodation to an existing dwelling at first floor level. Conditions 16. In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to materials is not necessary as these are set out on the planning application form. Conclusion 17. The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR 2 LPA Ref: W11040A 3 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/24/3345017 Demolition of existing garage and erection of single storey detached building to provide single dwelling and associated landscaping