Part double part single storey side extension, single storey rear extension. Loft conversion including rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 January 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001077 72 Hillside Gardens, Barnet, Edgware HA8 8HD • 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 Sweiry against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/2223/HSE. • The development proposed is “Part double part single storey side extension, single storey rear extension. Loft conversion including rear 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 host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The area around the appeal site generally consists of two-storey detached and semi-detached houses with white render and black timber (mock-Tudor) first floor elevations with catslide roofs which overhang inset ground floor bay windows. The mock-Tudor elevations are especially distinctive on the detached properties as their main roofs follow the pitches of the catslide roofs, creating a characteristic asymmetry. This is different in appearance to the broader and bulkier main roofs of the semi-detached properties. Many properties have set back single-storey or two-storey side extensions with a variety of roof forms, complementing the distinct articulation of the original house designs. The low main roof pitches and the side gaps between properties at first-floor level give the area a spacious feel. 5. The host dwelling is typical of detached houses in the area. Its roof ridge lies perpendicular to the street and its main hipped roof appears to rise to a peak when viewed from the front. Although it has a flat-roofed, two storey side extension, this is set well back from the mock-Tudor front elevation, retaining the prominence of this distinctive feature and the articulation characteristic of the area. 6. The property sits within a generous plot and the gaps between properties in the area are of varying widths. However, in general there are larger gaps between Appeal Planning Officer 6001077 2 properties at first floor level than at ground floor level, due to the distinctive roof designs. The proposal would significantly reduce the gaps between the host dwelling and neighbouring properties at first floor level, reducing the characteristic openness at this level. Whilst the flat ‘crown’ roof section would not be visible from the highway, the proposed roof ridge would lie parallel to the street and would give the host dwelling a broad roof form akin to semi-detached properties in the area but inconsistent with the prevailing ‘peaked’ roof forms of detached properties in the area. Consequently, the roof profile would not be sympathetic to the host dwelling and would be out of character within the streetscape. 7. The proposed side and roof extensions would add considerably to the width of the host dwelling, appearing disproportionately large in relation to the existing modest property. Their scale and prominent siting, neither set back from the principal elevation nor set down from the ridge, would draw the eye and detract from the distinctive mock-Tudor elevation and catslide roof. Consequently, although the proposal would use complementary materials, it would not be subordinate to the host dwelling and would not respond sensitively to the distinctive local character of the area. 8. The proposed rear dormer would extend almost the full width and depth of the roof slope, appearing as a dominant feature on the roof. Whilst it would only be publicly visible in small glimpses from the rear on Sterling Avenue, when seen together with the other roof extensions it would significantly change the appearance of the host dwelling’s roof. Consequently, the proposed roof extensions would not complement or respect the host dwelling and the ‘peaked’ roof forms that characterise the detached properties in the area. 9. There are examples within the area of rear dormers, hip-to-crown extensions, and side extensions not set back from the principal elevation. However, some relate to semi-detached properties, which have a different proportion and form to the appeal site, and some relate to properties that do not have the distinctive catslide roof and asymmetry of the appeal site. They therefore do not have a comparable visual impact on the original house designs and the character of the surrounding area. 10. Where they relate to detached properties of a similar character to the appeal site, these extensions are either not of the scale proposed in this appeal or do not reflect the prevailing character and appearance of the street. Furthermore, I do not have the full details of how they came to be built or what policies were in force at the time. Consequently, these examples are not demonstrably directly comparable to this appeal and they do not justify the unsympathetic design proposed. 11. The proposed full length rooflight would be visibly longer than the rooflights common in the area, and its siting close to the ridge would make it more visible from the highway than the example on a nearby street. Consequently, it would add to the incongruity of this proposal. 12. For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025). Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. Appeal Planning Officer 6001077 3 13. It would also the guidance for such extensions contained within the Barnet London Borough Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016). Other Matters 14. I have had regard to the argument put forward by the appellant that the siting and size of the proposal enhances the viability of the first floor and loft. However, they have not demonstrated that the existing property is not liveable or that additional accommodation cannot be achieved through a less harmful proposal. Nor have they demonstrated that there are maintenance issues with the existing roof or that these could not be overcome through an alternative design. Consequently, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified. 15. I note the appellant’s concerns about how the Council handled the application after submission, however this does not fall within my remit in making a recommendation on this appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 16. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR