Retention of decking and balustrades to existing hard- landscaped patio, new fence to one side of patio

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 October 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by F Harrison BA(hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000270 8 Eversleigh Road, New Barnet, Barnet EN5 1NE • 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 Eamon Sharkawi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/0636/RCU. • The development proposed is described as “retention of decking and balustrades to existing hard- landscaped patio, new fence to one side of patio”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. From my observations, the development has commenced and has been largely completed. However, as the development at the site is not in its finished state, for clarity, the recommendation has been based upon the submitted plans. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the proposed development’s effects on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and on the living conditions of the occupants of 7 and 9 Eversleigh Road, with regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The rear of dwellings along Eversleigh Road have a varied appearance, with properties benefitting from elements of alteration and extension. This includes terraces and decked areas, which, by virtue of the topography of the locality, are raised above the sloping ground level to varying degrees. Despite some differences in appearance, the similarity in the general scale of the built form and the linear gardens creates a harmonious and spacious character and appearance that contributes positively to the area. 6. The proposal would introduce a replacement raised decking area to the rear of the appeal dwelling to provide a usable transition between internal living space and Appeal Decision 6000270 2 the garden, said to support family use of the outdoor area. The rear of the appeal dwelling is not readily visible from the street. However, the proposal would be seen from numerous vantage points from the surrounding rear gardens of properties that front Eversleigh Road and Longmore Avenue. 7. The proposed development would be discernibly larger than both the previous decking area and that of the neighbouring properties. The conspicuous scale and massing of the proposed decking and fence would result in a bulky addition to the host dwelling and rear garden. In doing so it would draw the eye and unbalance the prevailing character and appearance of the area, eroding a small yet nevertheless harmful element of spaciousness. As a consequence, it would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework’s aims for the creation of high- quality places which is fundamental to what the development process should achieve. 8. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021–2036 (2025) (BLP). These policies include a requirement for development to be of a high architectural and urban design quality that responds to the distinctive local character and design, scale and massing of the existing context, complementing the character of the existing building in terms of style and form. Living conditions 9. Owing to the long linear gardens, occupants of Nos 7 and 9 have a generally open and unrestricted outlook towards their rear gardens. 10. The proposed raised decking area would introduce a permanent mass which would be located perpendicular and projecting along the shared boundary with No 9. Whilst there is an existing raised decking area, the proposed development would represent a substantive upward increase and projection. By virtue of its scale and location on the shared boundary, the proposed development would result in a noticeable difference in built form, which would diminish the existing outlook enjoyed by the occupants of No 9 from their ground floor rear windows and experienced from their rear garden, to the detriment of their living conditions. 11. The proposed development would also introduce a relatively tall boundary fence on the edge of the decking between the appeal dwelling and No 9. While this would ensure there were no privacy issues arising from the raised decking area, replacing vegetation that is said to have recently been removed, due to the topography of Eversleigh Road, the fence would appear as a dominant and oppressive feature when viewed by the occupants of No 9 and would create an uninviting outlook. Even if the fence would be of a similar height to the previous vegetation, the use of hard landscaping would exacerbate the proposal’s visual intrusion. 12. Due to the change in ground level between the properties and the existing boundary wall/fence, the proposed decking would not alter the existing conditions of outlook for the occupants of No 7. The proposal would also result in an increase in height and length of part of the boundary treatment between No 7 and the appeal site. However, the proposed fence would be modestly taller than that of the existing boundary wall. It would therefore not significantly narrow the outlook from Appeal Decision 6000270 3 the ground floor rear windows or rear garden at No 7. Consequently, no undue harm would arise to the living conditions of the occupiers of this property. 13. Whilst I acknowledge similarities between the pre-existing scheme and the appeal proposal, they are materially different, substantiated by the requirement to seek planning permission. The Council has not provided annotated drawings in relation to this main issue, nevertheless, matters relating to outlook largely relate to planning judgement, and it is my view that the proposal would be detrimental to the levels of outlook that could reasonably be expected by the occupants of No 9. It would not therefore align with the provisions of the Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guidance (2016) that seek development that safeguards residential amenity. 14. For the reasons above, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 9, with regard to outlook and would be in conflict with Policy D6 of the LP and policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the BLP. Amongst other things, these policies require development to allow for acceptable levels of outlook for adjoining occupants. Other Considerations 15. I have carefully considered the personal circumstances of the appellant and the stated functional need for the proposal to facilitate safe access for an elderly relative and the appellant’s young children. Age is a protected characteristic and so I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 16. In refusing to permit the proposal, such safety measures may not be available, so there could also be interference with the appellant’s right to respect for their private and family life and their home under Article 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). 17. However, it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed, and I am also mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the proposal would be permanent. There is insufficient specific evidence for me to draw a clear conclusion that the proposal is the only reasonable option available to meet the appellant’s aim of providing a usable transition between internal living space and the garden, supporting family use of the outdoor area. Accordingly, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect on those with protected characteristics, when weighed against the planning harm set out above. 18. For the same reasons, the potential interference with the qualified rights in the HRA is proportionate in this case, when balanced against the need to uphold the operation of the planning system, which includes the requirement for development to accord with the development plan; that being made and applied in the wider public interest. Appeal Decision 6000270 4 Conclusion and Recommendation 19. My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. F Harrison INSPECTOR