Two storey side extension following demolition of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2025 By O Tresise MSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000713 25 Brockley Avenue, Stanmore, Barnet HA7 4LT • 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 Jigar Mehta against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/1437/HSE. • The development proposed is a two storey side extension following demolition of existing garage. Part single, part two storey rear extension with 3 nos. rooflight to ground floor flat roof. Part single, part two storey front extension. Alterations and extension to roof including raising of main ridge height, rear gable feature, side dormer, front and side facing rooflights, and removal of chimneys. Installation of 9 no. solar panels to side roof slope. Fenestration changes including rear Juliette balcony, replacement of existing windows, and removal of side ground floor window. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension following demolition of existing garage. Part single, part two storey rear extension with 3 nos. rooflight to ground floor flat roof. Part single, part two storey front extension. Alterations and extension to roof including raising of main ridge height, rear gable feature, side dormer, front and side facing rooflights, and removal of chimneys. Fenestration changes including rear Juliette balcony, replacement of existing windows, and removal of side ground floor window at 25 Brockley Avenue, Stanmore, Barnet HA7 4LT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1437/HSE, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Proposed Plans & Elevations Drawing no. BA25-10-PROPOSED. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no. BA25-10-PROPOSED. 4) The roof area of the single storey rear extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. 5) The dormer windows and first-floor windows on the side elevation facing No 27 Brockley Avenue shall not be glazed other than with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Appeal Decision 6000713 2 6) Demolition or construction works shall take place only between 0800 and 1800 on Mondays to Fridays, 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or doors, other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the first-floor flank elevation facing No. 27 Brockley Avenue. Preliminary Matter 2. In the heading above I have taken the description of development from that used on the decision notice rather than the application form, as the description of development has been agreed by both main parties. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling which occupies a slightly elevated corner plot and is visible from both Brockley Avenue and Brockley Hill. Brockley Avenue is characterised by a group of two-storey detached properties, with hipped roofs forming a predominant architectural characteristic. Although some dwellings have been extended or altered, these additions are generally well designed and proportioned, introducing some variations in architectural form and detailing. Most of these properties are enclosed by low boundary walls, with areas of hardstanding to the front for vehicle parking. There are street trees lining both sides of the road. Taken together, these features contribute to a coherent character along Brockley Avenue. 5. To the north-west of the appeal site are a number of larger dwellings, which are considerably set back from Brockley Hill and display a variety of designs and roof forms. To the south-east lies a grassed public realm with mature tree planting, with a group of residential properties beyond. Collectively, these architectural and landscape features foster a sense of spaciousness and contribute positively to the coherent character and appearance of the wider area. 6. The appeal proposal would increase the existing ridge height of the host dwelling and incorporate extensions to the front, side, and rear elevations. Although the ridgeline would be higher than that of the previously approved scheme1, the roof would retain a hipped form, in keeping with the predominant roof style along Brockley Avenue. Furthermore, the scale of the roof would remain proportionate to the resulting building, and its hipped form means that the raised ridgeline would not appear dominant or visually intrusive. 7. In relation to the gable of the proposed two-storey rear extension, whilst it would not be small in scale, its ridge would sit below the main ridgeline and it would be set slightly back from the flank wall of the side elevation. These features would ensure that the gable is viewed as a subordinate element. The gable would include 1 Planning permission 23/5213/HSE Appeal Decision 6000713 3 a high proportion of glazing, however, the full-height glazing with vertical framing would help to break up the visual mass of the structure and create a lightweight appearance that reflects a modern design principle. Moreover, properties within the immediate vicinity display a variety of roof forms, scales, and design approaches. As such, although the appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot visible from both Brockley Avenue and Brockley Hill, the proposed roof form would not appear visually intrusive. Therefore, the appeal proposal would respond sensitively to the character of the area. 8. Whilst the Council has raised concerns regarding potential over-development, the appeal proposal has been designed to respect the scale, massing and proportions of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposed extensions and alterations would be subordinate to the main building, and the resulting building would retain adequate spacing to boundaries and surrounding properties. On this basis, the appeal proposal would not be an over-development of the site and would remain consistent with the prevailing character of the area. Consequently, it would not unacceptably harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. 9. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. As such, it would comply with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2025 and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, which seek to ensure new developments are well- designed and of a high quality. For the same reasons it would also accord with the aims of the Council’s Residential Design Guidance 2016. Other Matters 10. Concerns have been raised regarding the cumulative effect of multiple applications at the appeal property. Whilst it is important to consider such an effect, each application is assessed on its individual merits. Furthermore, there is little evidence before me to demonstrate that these applications would result in additional harm. Accordingly, it does not alter my findings above. 11. With regard to living conditions, the Council has assessed the proposal and concluded that it would not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties. Consequently, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on this matter. Conditions 12. In addition to the standard time period for the commencement of development, it is necessary in the interest of certainty to list the approved plans. I have also imposed a condition requiring the external materials of the proposed development to match the details stated on the provided drawing, in the interests of certainty as well as character and appearance. To protect the privacy and living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, in particular, No 27, I have imposed conditions to prohibit the roof of the proposed rear extension from being used as an amenity space, to restrict doors and windows on the flank elevation facing No 27, to restrict construction hours, and to remove permitted development rights for additional windows and doors on that elevation. 13. Although the appellant has expressed his willingness to accept a condition to maintain a tall evergreen hedge, I do not consider this necessary, as I find the Appeal Decision 6000713 4 appeal proposal is acceptable. With regard to the solar panels, the submitted layout is indicative only, and it would not be reasonable to secure it by condition, as the final arrangement may be adjusted to optimise energy performance. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. O Tresise INSPECTOR