Part single, part double storey side and rear extension with Juliet balcony and internal alterations following the demo lition of the garage. Concrete roof tiles to be replaced with slate tiles

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 May 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000113 73 Rivington Crescent, Mill Hill, Barnet, London NW7 2LF • 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 Kelment Salla against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/3822/HSE. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘Part single, part double storey side and rear extension with Juliet balcony and internal alterations following the demo lition of the garage. Concrete roof tiles to be replaced with slate tiles.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council’s reasons for refusal include reference to the removal of the catslide roof. I understand a catslide roof to be a roof that extends lower or longer on one side whereas the roof on the appeal property is a symmetrical pitch roof with a flat roof dormer extending across the front and rear roof slopes. Notwithstanding that the appeal proposals do not relate to a catslide roof, I have proceeded to determine the appeal on the information before me. 3. The Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (LP) on 4 March 2025. This replaces the previous Local Plan comprising of the Core Strategy and the Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents, adopted September 2012 referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal and I have taken those comments into account. The Council have provided copies of Policies CDH04, HOU03 and GSS01 of the LP which relate to tall buildings; residential conversion and redevelopment of larger homes; and delivering sustainable growth. As the appeal proposal relates to a domestic extension, these policies are not relevant to the proposal before me. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of 72 Rivington Close with respect to outlook and daylight. Appeal Decision 6000113 2 Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached pair of dwellings located in a predominantly residential area. There is a variety of styles and types of dwellings in the area, but the host dwelling and its immediate neighbours are all of a similar design comprising of first floor accommodation provided in the roof with a flat roof dormer to the front and rear of the property. 6. The two storey extension to the side of the property would be set in from the side boundary, back from the main front elevation and down from the main ridge. As a result, the side extension would appear subservient to the host dwelling. The flat roof dormer proposed on the front elevation would be consistent with the existing dormer on the main roof. The side extension would not be harmful to the overall character and appearance of the host dwelling or the local area. 7. However, the first floor gable projection to the rear of the property would extend across more than half the width of the rear elevation and project out by some 2.3 metres. This would be a considerably bulky addition. Whilst it would be set down from the main ridge, the use of a gable design in place of the flat roof dormer would be an incongruous feature which would be particularly visible from University Close. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. 8. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy CDH01 of the LP insofar as they require high quality design which responds sensitively to local character and design. Living conditions 9. The proposed two storey extension to the side of the property would be only one metre from the boundary with the neighbouring property, 72 Rivington Crescent. However, it would be adjacent to the flank wall of the neighbouring property so would have a limited impact on the occupier’s living conditions. 10. However, the significant bulk, size and design of the rear two storey gable extension together with its siting in close proximity to the neighbouring property would be overbearing. Its location to the south west of number 72 would result in unacceptable overshadowing. 11. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy CDH01 of the LP which requires that proposals allow for acceptable levels of daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers. Other Matters 12. Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework promotes the effective use of land and maximising densities, it also requires high quality design which is sympathetic to local character and a high standard of amenity for existing users. The appeal scheme would not achieve this. 13. The two storey side extension to 42 Wardell Close is set down from the main ridge and back from the front elevation in much the same way as the appeal proposal. However, it does not include a two storey rear extension. The side and rear Appeal Decision 6000113 3 extensions approved at 49 Wardell Close are single storey. For these reasons, neither extension is comparable to the proposal before me. 14. The proposal would undoubtedly enhance the living accommodation for the appellant and his family and I note the lack of objections from neighbouring occupiers. However, neither of these override the harm I have identified in respect of the main issues. Conclusion 15. The proposed development is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR