Single storey rear extension. First floor rear and side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 January 2026 by Isabelle Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9TH February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001514 27 Mill Ridge, Barnet, Edgware HA8 7PE • 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 Donovan Mansoor against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/2651/HSE. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension. First floor rear and side extension. Changes to fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension, first floor rear and side extension, changes to fenestration at 27 Mill Ridge, Barnet, Edgware HA8 7PE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/2651/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions. 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings Location Plan, 202416.P.5301, 202416.P.5101, 202416.P.5302, 202416.P.5102. 2) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 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 site visit I saw that a first floor extension and dormer were under construction but were not yet complete, and I note that a previous permission exists for these. I have considered the appeal based on the plans submitted rather than as it was on my site visit. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Appeal Planning Officer 6001514 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property sits within a row of semi-detached housing with rear elevations facing onto a public park. Views of the rear elevations are largely screened by high boundary treatments of fencing and mature vegetation. The vegetation is particularly dense to the rear of the appeal property. The rear elevations of properties along this row are varied, with numerous other rear extensions and dormers evident. In addition, 25 Mill Ridge contains an outbuilding within its rear garden, further contributing to the varied character of rear development locally. 6. The appeal property already benefits from rear extensions, one of which extends approximately 6m in depth along the boundary with No 29. While this exceeds the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (RDGSPD), there are similar projecting rear extensions and garages along Mill Ridge and these form part of the established pattern of development. 7. The proposed ground floor rear extension would be wider but no deeper than the existing rear extension and would leave a clear gap to the boundary with No 25, avoiding creating any terracing effect to the rear. It would sit comfortably within the existing form of the building and would help to visually anchor the proposed first floor extension and dormer. As a result, the rear elevation would appear more unified and cohesive with the ground floor extension than without it. 8. Taken together, the proposed ground floor, first floor and dormer extensions would add notable bulk to the rear of the appeal property. However, in the context of the numerous rear additions present locally, the proposal would not appear visually intrusive or out of keeping with its surroundings. Furthermore, together they would not look too bulky or prominent compared to the size of the main building and its garden. 9. Boundary treatments between neighbouring properties and the public park would also largely screen the proposed ground floor extension, with only the first floor and dormer easily visible. For the above reasons therefore, the proposal would respond sensitively to local character and remain subordinate to the existing building. Consequently, it would not harm the character or appearance of the host property or surrounding area. 10. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2021-2036) (BLP) and the guidance within the RDGSPD (2016) which, among other things, seek to ensure development is of high quality and responds to the local context of the area and host building. Other Matters 11. The proposals would introduce additional bulk closer to No 29 at first floor level. This would slightly reduce the outlook from the nearest first floor window. However, the effect would be very limited due to the angle between the window and the proposed extensions, and therefore would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 29. Furthermore, the first floor and roof elements of this proposal already benefit from planning permission. The depth of the existing ground floor extension adjacent to No. 29 would remain as existing. Therefore, this does not justify dismissing the appeal. Appeal Planning Officer 6001514 3 Conditions 12. Time limit and plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition for matching materials is also necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. 13. The Council has suggested a number of additional conditions. A restriction on using the roof of the ground floor extension as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area is not necessary as the presence of large roof lanterns would make this an unlikely and impractical space for such use, and would not be permitted under permitted development rights. 14. The plans show the first floor window proposed in the side elevation facing 29 Mill Ridge as being obscure glazed. However, as No 29 has no side-facing windows, the risk of harmful overlooking is very limited so it is not necessary to secure this by condition. Under permitted development rights any new side window installed above ground floor level would be required to be obscure glazed and fixed shut up to 1.7m above internal floor level. Any side windows or doors at ground floor level would be screened by existing boundary treatment. These factors would prevent harmful overlooking, therefore a condition to remove permitted development rights for new side windows is not necessary. 15. The proposed scheme includes a glazed folding door facing No 25. There is already some existing mutual overlooking between the existing kitchen window and the rear patio of that neighbour. The proposal would slightly increase overlooking towards No 25 but given the existing overlooking this would not be sufficient to harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Therefore, the suggested conditions to amend the proposal to exchange the door for an obscure glazed, fixed window are not necessary. 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 allowed subject to conditions. Isabelle Ingledew 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 allowed subject to the conditions listed above. L McKay INSPECTOR