Two-storey extension to rear of property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by JJ Packman MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004654 1 Trinder Road, Barnet, Greater London, EN5 3EQ • 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 Jade James against the decision of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/4875/HSE. • The development proposed is a two-storey extension to rear of property. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey extension at 1 Trinder Road, Barnet, Greater London, EN5 3EQ in accordance with the terms of the application 25/4875/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 undertaken in accordance with drawing no.s: 00000 Rev P1, 01110 Rev P1, 03100 Rev P1, 11110 Rev P1, and 13100 Rev P1. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) 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 shown on the approved drawings shall be inserted in the side elevations of the extension hereby permitted. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.3 Trinder Road, with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure. Appeal Decision: 6004654 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property comprises No. 1 Trinder Road, one half of a semi-detached dwelling within an established residential area characterised by similar properties, some of which have been extended to the rear. The dwelling has a simple hipped roof form and a pebbledash finish. The rear gardens of Nos. 1 and 3 benefit from good levels of natural daylight. The part of rear garden of No. 1 nearest the house appears to sit at a slightly lower level than the rear garden of No. 3. 4. The proposal is for a two-storey rear extension. At ground-floor level the proposal would extend across the full width of the existing house up to the boundary with No. 3. The proposed first-floor element would be narrower, spanning approximately three-quarters of the width of the house, with a small flat-roofed section linking the ground-floor element to the upper floor. The extension would project approximately 3 metres beyond the existing rear elevation and tie into the existing hipped roof form. 5. Whilst the Council has raised concerns that the width, bulk, and scale of the proposed extension would result in an unsympathetic addition, I observed from my site visit that extensions of a similar scale to the rear of properties are evident within the surrounding area and form part of the established pattern of development. 6. The proposed extension would have a modest rearward projection that would not appear excessive in the context of the host dwelling or the surrounding development pattern. Although the ground-floor element would extend across the full width of the existing house, the first-floor element would be appreciably narrower. The extension would adopt a simple and sensitive architectural form that reflects the proportions and roof profile of the existing house. 7. I recognise that the proposal would not fully accord with the Residential Design Guide SPD, which advises that two-storey extensions should normally be set down from the ridge of the main roof by at least 0.5 metres. The ridge would be set down slightly, but not by 0.5 metres. 8. However, the modest depth of projection, the stepped form at first-floor level and the continuation of the existing roof profile would ensure that the proposal would appear as a proportionate and subordinate addition that would not dominate the host dwelling or the plot. As such, I find that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area and would accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), which seeks high-quality design, and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025), which support extensions that respond sensitively to local character and that are subordinate to the existing building. Living Conditions 9. The occupiers of No. 3 Trinder Road are the neighbouring residents most likely to be affected by the proposal. The Council’s concern relates to the potential for the extension to appear visually intrusive and overbearing, resulting in an unacceptable loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure. Appeal Decision: 6004654 3 10. I observed from my site visit that the boundary screening appears particularly effective with a timber fence situated atop two gravel boards and a high evergreen hedge above it. These features would largely obscure the ground-floor element closest to the boundary and would limit its visual presence when experienced from the neighbouring garden. 11. At first-floor level the extension would incorporate a recessed element adjacent to the shared boundary. This would reduce the apparent scale of the development closest to No. 3 and lessen its visual presence when viewed from the neighbouring property. Furthermore, the rear elevations of Nos. 1 and 3 already benefit from good levels of natural daylight. 12. I accept that the proposed extension would reduce the amount of daylight received by some windows at No. 3, most notably the ground-floor window closest to the shared boundary. I also recognise that the proposal would not fully accord with the Residential Design Guide SPD in respect of two-storey rear extensions close to neighbouring boundaries. However, having regard to the modest depth of projection, the localised change in ground levels close to the shared boundary, the presence of the boundary treatment and evergreen hedge, and the stepped form of the extension at first-floor level adjacent to the boundary, I do not find the proposals to be excessively bulky or dominant. Any reduction in daylight would not be so significant as to result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. 13. Having regard to the matters discussed above, I do not find that the proposal would appear visually intrusive or overbearing, nor would it result in an undue loss of outlook or increased sense of enclosure when experienced from No. 3. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would accord with Policy D3, which seeks to ensure development provides appropriate levels of outlook, daylight, and residential amenity, and Policies CDH01 and CDH05, which require extensions to avoid unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residential amenity. Conditions 14. The conditions imposed are those which have been suggested by the Council, with some wording changes for clarity and brevity. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the external materials to match those of the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. I have also imposed a condition restricting the insertion of additional openings in the side elevations of the extension in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion 15. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. JJ Packman INSPECTOR