First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2025 by A Morrison MTCP MRTPI Decision by R Morgan MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001631 Greenroofs, 22 Oaklands Road, Barnet, London N20 8AX • 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 Ms Denis and Susan Djemal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/3336/HSE. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension at Greenroofs, 22 Oaklands Road, Barnet, London N20 8AX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3336/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, 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: 98 Proposed Block Plan, 99 Location Plan, 200 Proposed Ground Floor Plan, 201 Proposed First Floor Plan, 202 Proposed Roof Plan, 203 Proposed Front Elevation, 204 Proposed Rear Elevation, 205 Proposed Side Elevation, 206 Proposed Side Elevation and 207 Proposed Section. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the proposed flank windows at first floor level, indicated on drawing no. 206, have been fitted with obscure glazing. No part of the windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which they are installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscure glazing and non-openable parts of the windows shall be retained permanently thereafter. 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. Appeal Decision 6001631 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is within the Totteridge Conservation Area (the CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 5. The CA comprises a ribbon of mainly residential development within a semi-rural setting on the periphery of Barnet. Having regard to its Character Appraisal Statement (CAS), the CA’s significance stems from its agricultural origins, its ridge- top landscape setting and its secluded countryside character. This is complemented by a wealth of buildings of architectural and historical interest, many of which reflect the area’s long-established status as a desirable location for affluent residents. 6. Oaklands Road is a well-established and attractive suburban residential street at the northern fringe of the CA. Properties within the road differ widely in their form, scale and materials, including several examples of crown roofs. Whilst the adjacent bungalow to the appeal site, 21 Oaklands Road (No 21), continues to exhibit its modest original proportions and design, a large proportion of dwellings have been subject to substantial enlargement and modernisation. 7. A Townscape Analysis Map accompanying the CAS does not identify any buildings within Oaklands Road as statutory listed, locally listed or as otherwise making a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the CA. Indeed, the CAS describes Oaklands Road as of limited merit and as a negative feature of the Totteridge Village character area within the CA, the key characteristics of which centre around the main road and its junction with Barnet Lane. I agree that due to the widespread use of more modern materials and architectural forms, neither the appeal site nor the broader Oaklands Road streetscape make a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 8. Centrally positioned in the street, the two storey appeal dwelling has an irregular form by virtue of an assortment of projections and roof profiles arising from previous extensions, amongst which is a catslide feature to its lower west side. A consistent palette of high-quality materials alongside a uniform style of windows nevertheless affords the building a cohesive appearance, with its individual design sitting comfortably within the highly varied surrounding architectural character. 9. The proposed first floor extension would be sensitively set back from the dwelling’s primary front elevation, and by virtue of its crown roof form, would also be set significantly below the ridgeline. Consequently, the enlargement would be appropriately subordinate in respect of its dimensions and overall massing. In addition, the incorporation of corresponding eaves lines, roof pitches, windows and materials is indicative of a sympathetic design approach. These features would in combination produce a development that respects the building’s present scale and appearance, and accordingly does not read as incongruous within the mixed streetscene, in which crown roofs are a regular characteristic. Appeal Decision 6001631 3 10. I appreciate that the design would introduce a further new roof profile to the dwelling and would be clearly visible from the road as positioned adjacent No 21’s smaller roof. However, given the dwelling’s existing asymmetrical, unbalanced form and the design qualities of the scheme as outlined above, the proposal would not cause harm to its character and appearance. Furthermore, although the extension would cover much of the existing catslide roof, this is not an element of particular architectural or local significance. In any case, due to the proposed set-back, the catslide would be partially retained and therefore remain a feature of the property. 11. The dwelling sits on slightly higher ground than No 21, but the extension would be of a moderate height and scale, and would be set a comfortable distance apart from the neighbour’s roof. Consequently, it would not result in an overbearing spatial relationship between the respective buildings. 12. On this basis I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and would preserve the character and appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area. It would thus accord with the requirements of the Act, together with Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021 (London Plan), Policy CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (Local Plan) and paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework which collectively provide that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. 13. It would furthermore accord with London Plan Policy D3 and Local Plan Policies CDH01 and CDH05, which together seek to ensure that development proposals, including building extensions, are designed to a high architectural quality, are subordinate to and complement the character of the existing building and maintain or improve the appearance of the streetscene. Other Matters 14. The extension would not extend beyond the existing rear elevation, and taking account of the relative position of the appeal property and No 21, I am satisfied that it would not result in unacceptable over shadowing, loss of light or outlook to the neighbouring property. I do however propose to include a condition requiring obscure glazing to the extension’s flank windows to safeguard the privacy of this neighbouring occupier. Whilst I note comments about disturbance during construction, this would be for a temporary period only. Conditions 15. The Council has suggested four conditions in addition to the statutory commencement condition. I agree that conditions requiring compliance with the approved plans, for external materials to match existing, and for the proposed flank windows to be obscure glazed and non-openable below 1.7 metres are necessary and reasonable to reflect the details of the application, to safeguard the character and appearance of the building and area, and to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier. Given that any additional first floor side windows would be restricted in their glazing type by the permitted development regime, a condition preventing their installation is however not necessary and reasonable. 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 the conditions set out. Appeal Decision 6001631 4 A Morrison 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. R Morgan INSPECTOR