Loft conversion and re-design of the roof to include one rear and one side dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 November 2025 by E Clifford BA(Hons) MA Decision by P Hanna PGDip MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000360 36 North Crescent, Finchley, Barnet, London N3 3LL • 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 Dr Hamid Bahai against the decision of Council of London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/0879/HSE. • The development proposed is a loft conversion and re-design of the roof to include one rear and one side dormer. 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 area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is a detached, two-storey property located on a residential street with a tight urban grain. It has a slightly projecting forward gable, whilst the remainder of the roof is hipped. There is a bay window to the ground floor, which supports a small balcony accessed from the first floor. The immediate neighbour No 34 has undergone a crown roof alteration, which is largely of recessive appearance in the street scene. 5. North Crescent does not have an overarching architectural uniformity; however, some consistency can be found in the plot sizes and setback from the highway and the gables which feature on the majority of properties in some form. Dormer windows and crown roofs are also interspersed throughout the street scene, as properties have been altered over time. 6. The introduction of a roof alteration to the appeal dwelling would not be a unique feature of North Crescent as examples are already present on other properties, including the neighbouring property, no.34. However, in contrast to the neighbouring scheme, the proposed development would see a truncated gable introduced to the front gable. Whereas the retention of the front gable has partially concealed the crown roof at no.34, the proposed truncated gable to the appeal dwelling would have the opposite effect. Appeal Decision 6000630 2 7. This resultant overall increase of the mass of the roofscape would also be viewed in conjunction with the proposed side and rear dormers. The proposed dormers are comparatively large. Indeed, the side dormer is proposed to be nearly the width of the existing roof slope. When the proposed development is considered in its entirety, it would lack the subserviency required for the dormers to assimilate with the host dwelling, regardless of matching materials as proposed. The domineering effect of the proposed overall roofscape would serve to overwhelm the host dwelling and appear out of keeping with its character and result in an incongruous addition to the streetscape. 8. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would not comply with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) which require development to respond sensitively to local character and design, notably building and roof form, and to incorporate a roof profile sympathetic to the existing property. It would also not comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which requires development to be of high quality. It would further contradict the guidance within of the Barnet London Borough Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) regarding the subordinacy of extensions to the original house, and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) paragraph 135. Other Matters 9. The appellant has drawn my attention to no.18 Arden Road, a property which lies immediately to the rear of the appeal site, and the roof alterations which have been undertaken. However, I do not have the specific details of this development and so cannot consider whether it is directly comparable to the appeal scheme, particularly with regard to character and appearance. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits. 10. The proposed development would not have an effect on neighbouring property; a matter on which the appellant had LPA are agreed. Whilst I concur with this, it does not overcome the harm I have found elsewhere in the scheme. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. P Hanna INSPECTOR