Single storey & first floor rear extensions, along with internal re-configuration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2026 by F Leung BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:30 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004998 10 Weymouth Avenue, Mill Hill, Barnet, London, NW7 3JE • 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 Birju Lukka against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/4865/HSE. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “the proposal involves a single storey & first floor rear extensions, along with internal re-configuration”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single-storey and first-floor rear extensions, alterations to the existing patio area and access steps, along with internal re-configuration at 10 Weymouth Avenue, Mill Hill, Barnet, London, NW7 3JE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/4865/HSE, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with Drawing Nos P-0, P-0-2, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-13 and P-14. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. 5) 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/dormer windows or doors, shall be constructed on the north-east side elevation of the extension hereby permitted. Procedural Matters 2. Interested parties have referred to the inaccurate description of the existing dwelling as a three-bedroom house, the appellant’s stated personal circumstances, and the omission of side and rear elevation plans. There is no dispute between the Council and the appellant on these matters, and I am satisfied, on the evidence before me and my own observations, that the description is accurate and that I am able to determine the appeal. Appeal Decision 6004998 2 3. Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the proposed development also comprises the alterations to the existing patio area and access steps. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I. In my formal decision, I have also simplified the description to remove superfluous text from the application form which do not relate to acts of development. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 8 Weymouth Avenue, with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property sits within a suburban residential street characterised predominantly by two-storey detached dwellings of generally similar design. The area displays a consistent plot rhythm, comparable building lines and spacious front and rear gardens. Many properties have been altered, with extensions of varying scale, form and design. The host building is positioned on a raised level relative to its rear garden. 6. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (the RDG) advises that extensions should be subordinate to the original dwelling, respect its character and not appear overly dominant. They should generally reflect the form, scale and architectural style of the host building, including the use of an appropriate roof form. The RDG also indicates that single-storey rear extensions to detached dwellings should normally not exceed 4 metres in depth. 7. The proposed single-storey rear element would project approximately 4.4 metres beyond the original rear wall, with the first-floor element extending by approximately 3 metres. While the single-storey element would exceed the depth in the guidance of the RDG, it would do so by a small amount. The proposal would retain the existing separation of approximately 2.5 metres from the shared boundary and would not extend beyond the neighbouring rear building line. Although the extension would span the full width of the rear elevation, the two-storey element would incorporate a hipped roof set down considerably below the main ridge. The overall scale, bulk and massing of the extension would read as a subordinate addition to the host building. 8. The fenestration proposed on the rear elevation would be generally well- proportioned and would not appear discordant with the existing building or the wider area. The proposed enlargement of the patio area and access steps by approximately 2 metres would be modest in scale and appropriate given the generous size of the rear garden. Appeal Decision 6004998 3 9. Given its rear siting, the proposed extension would not be visible from public viewpoints. It would also not appear visually dominant from within neighbouring gardens, which are large and deep and currently benefit from mature evergreen trees and other planting along the shared boundaries that provide screening. 10. For these reasons, the proposed extension would not appear visually obstructive, disproportionate or incongruous to the host building and the surrounding area. Despite the modest exceedance of the guidance set out in the RDG, it would generally accord with the overall design objectives of the RDG. 11. Overall, I conclude that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area. It would therefore accord with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 (adopted in 2025) (the LP) and Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021). Amongst other considerations, these policies seek high-quality design that responds sensitively to local character and context through appropriate form and scale. Living conditions 12. Due to its scale and depth, the proposal would alter the relationship with No 8 to the north. However, the development would retain the existing separation distance of approximately 2.5 metres from the shared boundary, and the roof pitch of the two-storey extension element would drop down towards that boundary. In addition, there is dense, mature evergreen trees and planting along the boundary. 13. While the proposed extension would be visible from the neighbouring No 8, there would be sufficient separation distance between the extension and the rear-facing windows of No 8. The presence of dense, mature trees and planting along the boundary would also provide some additional screening. The extension would not be of such a scale or massing as to have detrimental impact on the outlook of occupiers of this property, which would remain principally over their own open and spacious private garden. 14. I have had regard to the concerns raised in relation to the potential loss of daylight and sunlight received by the rear garden and rear-facing windows of No 8. Given the height, scale and siting of the proposed extension, combined with the separation distance and the large size of the rear garden of No 8, the resultant change in the level of daylight and sunlight received by the neighbouring occupiers would therefore be modest in this context. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would lead to material loss of daylight and sunlight that would be harmful to the neighbouring occupiers at No 8. 15. I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would not result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupiers of No 8, with regard to outlook, daylight or sunlight. Consequently, it would comply with the LP Policies CDH01 and CDH05 and The London Plan Policy D3, which, amongst other considerations, seek to ensure acceptable living conditions for neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6004998 4 Other Matters 16. Concerns have been raised that the proposed development could facilitate conversion to flats or a house in multiple occupation in the future. However, there is no reference to a change of use in the application form. I am satisfied that the description of the development is consistent with the proposal, and there is no proposal for a separate dwelling or any other use before me. Moreover, it would remain open for the Council to consider whether any change in future activity or the use of the building results in a material change of use that requires planning permission 17. I also note the dissatisfaction expressed by interested parties that they were not notified by letter at the application stage. On the evidence before me, a site notice has been displayed and the statutory requirements for notification of the application and appeal have been carried out. Conditions 18. The Council has suggested a set of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute, and have accordingly amended the wording of certain conditions proposed by the Council without altering their aim. 19. Conditions specifying the time for commencement and compliance with the approved plans have been imposed. These are necessary for certainty. A further condition requiring external materials to match the existing has been imposed. This is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. 20. Although the Council has not raised objection regarding privacy of the neighbouring occupiers at No 8, given the layout of the proposal I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions to ensure adequate privacy is maintained between the properties. I agree that these conditions are necessary and therefore a condition restricting the use of the proposed flat roof of the extension as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area has been imposed. A condition to restrict future installation of any window or door on the side elevation of the extension facing No 8 has also been imposed. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole. No material considerations indicate that a decision should be made otherwise. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. F Leung INSPECTOR