Replace existing conservatory with single storey rear extension 1.5m deeper

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 May 2026 by Megan Thomas K.C. Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:07 July 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/6008159 27 Edward Road, New Barnet, Barnet EN4 8AY • 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 Philbinder Dhamrait against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application ref. is 26/0411/HSE. • The development proposed is “Replace existing conservatory with single storey rear extension 1.5m deeper.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of no.29 Edward Road in relation to outlook and sense of enclosure. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site is a two storey terraced dwelling on the east side of Edward Road. Part of the first floor at the front of the property is a flying element above the drive allowing access into the rear garden. The terraced dwelling to the south of the appeal site is no.29 Edward Road. The garden land of the appeal site wraps around the rear end of the rear garden of no.29. 4. No.23 is to the north and is the southern dwelling in a row of terraces. It is physically separated from the appeal site. The surrounding area is characterised by terraced and semi- detached residential properties in a built-up part of Barnet. 5. The appeal site has the benefit of a planning permission dated 14 May 2025 for a single storey rear extension including an ensuite shower room, following demolition of the conservatory (application ref:25/1179/HSE – existing and proposed depth shown as 3640mm). 6. The existing conservatory is sited very close to the southern boundary of the appeal site and has a depth of about 3.5m and width of about 3.8m. The proposed single storey extension would replace the existing conservatory and would have a depth of about 5m and a width of some 5.8m. Consequently, in terms of additional depth, that would be about 1.5m. The Appeal Decision APP/6008159 2 proposed extension would have a flat roof (as has the existing conservatory) and would match the height of the extension which has been granted permission under application reference 25/1179/HSE. 7. The Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) at paragraph 14.21 states that the depth of a single storey rear extension, normally considered acceptable for terraced properties is 3m (and for semi-detached properties 3.5m). At the appeal site, the single storey rear projection taken cumulatively is already deep and deeper than 3m. I note that planning permission 25/1179/HSE permits a single storey rear extension replacing the conservatory, but this would not extend beyond the depth of the existing conservatory. The appeal scheme seeks a further depth of about 1.5m. This would result in an overall extension which is not in keeping with the pattern of development in this urban area and well in excess of SPD guidance. Whilst there are rear extensions in the immediate area, the proposed depth of this one would not be typical of the area and the appellant has not drawn my attention to any of a similar depth. 8. The appellant suggests that the existing arrangement does not respond sensitively to the established pattern of development and argues that therefore the marginal increase in the overall depth would not materially alter this situation. However, in my view there is little merit in exacerbating an incongruous pattern of development and an increase in depth of about 1.5m in the particular circumstances of this case is not inconsequential. The overall resulting development would also be at odds with the host dwelling insofar as it would tend to dominate the host dwelling and cumulatively would fail to be subordinate or proportionate to the essential character of that host dwelling. 9. I conclude therefore that the proposed development would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the London Borough of Barnet Local Plan (adopted March 2025), and Barnet’s Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). Living conditions of occupants of 29 Edward Road 10. 29 Edward Road is to the south of the appeal site and has a back-to-back rear two storey outrigger with the appeal dwelling. There is a close boarded fence on the common boundary. It has a rear patio area and garden. The ground floor outrigger east-facing window looks down the garden. I am obliged to consider not only the potential loss of outlook for the current occupants but also for any future occupants of no.29. 11. As with the issue above, I have treated the existing planning permission (application ref: 25/1179/HSE) as a potential fallback development. In my view, the impacts of the proposed appeal scheme would materially worsen the sense of enclosure that the occupants of no.29 would experience, in comparison to permission 25/1179/HSE. On my site visit, I was able to ascertain that the rear garden to no.29 is narrow. Given the height of the proposed southern flank wall of the appeal proposal and the proposed depth of that wall and its proximity to the common boundary, the added impact, compared to the approved scheme, would increase the sense of enclosure and loss of outlook to an unacceptable level. The occupants would experience that unacceptable loss of outlook when in their garden and from the east-facing ground floor window in the outrigger. 12. The proposed development would therefore unduly harm the living conditions of the occupants of 29 Edward Road by reason of loss of outlook and undue increased sense of enclosure. It would be contrary to policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the London Borough of Barnet Local Plan (adopted 2025) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). Appeal Decision APP/6008159 3 Conclusion 13. Having considered all representations made including those relating to the improved layout, and the personal circumstances of a dependent member of the household, the harm I have identified above outweighs the benefits of the scheme. Consequently, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Megan Thomas K.C. Inspector