Development proposed front extension, portico to front door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 October 2025 by S Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000348 43 Oakleigh Park South, Whetstone, Barnet, London N20 9JR • 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 and Mrs Fard against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/0881/HSE. • The development proposed front extension, portico to front door. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling with particular regard to its locally listed status. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a striking two-storey detached dwelling with three distinctive wings (north, east and south) with two distinctive feature gables, one facing south and one facing east. These both have arched brick lintels at first floor and leaded bay windows at ground floor. The property has Flemish bond red brick at ground floor, roughcast rendered first floor, leaded windows and there are detailed feature chimneys amongst other things. The property sits in an elevated position in its wide and generous plot, presenting an approximate T-shape to the road. There is a modern detached outbuilding that has a similar gable feature. 5. The appeal property is locally listed by the Council, due to it having architectural and historic merit. The evidence shows that one of its significances derives from its relationship to the important London architect Arthur Keen (1861-1938). The appellants do not dispute this matter. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) defines a heritage asset as: ‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)’. Appeal Decision 6000348 2 7. Although local listing provides no additional planning controls, the fact that a building is on a local list means that its conservation as a heritage asset is an objective of the Framework when determining the outcome of a planning application or subsequent appeal. In considering proposals that affect a locally listed heritage asset, paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application, and in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 8. The proposal would enlarge the south wing by approximately 1.9 metres, and a single ground floor window would be added. Whilst the window would be leaded, to match those used elsewhere in the dwelling, it would alter the symmetry of the visually prominent south elevation. 9. A further smaller, lower gable would be added, with an associated dual pitched roof. Whilst this draws from the two existing feature gables in shape and retains the existing parapet/stack, it would unbalance this projection, adding width. Whilst the smaller gable and lower roof may allow the extra width to appear subordinate, taken together with the additional window it would distort the symmetry of this wing when viewed from the south of the property resulting in a disjointed and uncharacteristic appearance. 10. I acknowledge that the proposed development, described above, would be set back and when viewed from the east would not compete with the secondary front building line of the appeal property; however, that would not mitigate the harm found above. 11. A portico is proposed to the main front door on the north wing. The existing main entrance is an integral feature of the property, constructed using high quality materials and construction technique to form the arch. The proposal would introduce uncharacteristic arch supports and a curved canopy which would diminish the positive contribution of the existing high quality feature arch to the detriment of the integrity of the locally listed asset. 12. It is clear from my observations on my site visit that the significance of the property lies in the visually distinctive form, accentuated by the feature gables, the use of high quality materials and distinctive construction methods. Together they make a positive contribution to the varied and rich street-scene. A local listing does not restrict all development; however, being located in an elevated prominent position and highly visible in the street scene, the proposed development would fail to better reveal and enhance the locally listed asset. It would diminish the positive contribution the property makes to the street scene and harmfully diminish its significance as a locally listed building. 13. Whilst opportunity to extend the property to the rear may be limited, it would appear to exist. Even if it did not, that would not be a reason to justify allowing harmful development in this case. 14. I have had regard to 24 Oakleigh Park South and the detail submitted with this appeal; however, that property is not locally listed and I therefore differentiate that development from the current appeal property and afford it little weight. Appeal Decision 6000348 3 15. The appellants maintain that the proposed development would preserve the significance of the locally listed building, more so than other permitted development options. My attention has been drawn to a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) for roof extensions; however, I have not been provided with this document. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the LDC would be any better or worse than the proposal before me. Furthermore, an LDC is not considered against the development plan, against which I must consider this appeal. As such I afford the LDC little weight in this appeal. 16. I have also been made aware that the property retains full permitted development rights and that certain elements of the scheme could be undertaken without the need for planning permission. However, I do not have any substantive detail before me to demonstrate how elements of the scheme comply with permitted development. Therefore, I cannot be certain that is the case, and I attribute this factor little weight. 17. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies CDH01, CDH05, and CD08 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) insofar as they seek high quality development that responds sensitively to distinctive local character and design; maintains or improves the appearance of the street scene; and better reveals and enhances the significance of non-designated heritage assets. The proposal would diminish the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and therefore conflict with paragraph 216 of the Framework. In addition, the proposal would fail to comply with supplementary planning guidance within the Residential Design Guidance (2016) insofar as it seeks development that fits with the architectural style of the building. Conclusion and Recommendation 18. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Wilson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR