Part Single part two storey side and rear extension following demolition of garage. Construction of loft extension including rear dormer and insertion of 2no roof lights to front and side elevations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008293 20 The Drive, Golders Green, Barnet, London NW11 9SR • 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 Sam Denciger against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/4911/HSE. • The development proposed is “Part Single part two storey side and rear extension following demolition of garage. Construction of loft extension including rear dormer and insertion of 2no roof lights to front and side elevations”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single part two storey side and rear extension following demolition of garage, and construction of loft extension including rear dormer and insertion of 2no roof lights to front and side elevations at 20 The Drive, Golders Green, Barnet, London, NW11 9SR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/4911/HSE, 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: Location Plan, 2449-NMA-XX-00-DR-A-30100 Rev P3, 2449-NMA-XX-01-DR-A-30100 Rev P3, 2449-NMA-XX-RF-DR-A-30100 Rev P3, 2449-NMA-XX-ZZ-DR-A-30002 Rev P2, 2449-NMA-XX-ZZ-DR-A- 30200 Rev P2, 2449-NMA-XX-ZZ-DR-A-30201 Rev P2, 2449-NMA-XX-ZZ-DR- A-30300 Rev P2. 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows on the side elevations facing 24 The Drive have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which they are installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the windows are installed, and once installed, the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. 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 or doors other Appeal Decision 6008293 2 than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the side elevations of the development hereby permitted that face either 18 The Drive or 24 The Drive. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The surrounding area generally consists of two-storey semi-detached houses with red tiled roofs and white render and red brick elevations. Many houses, including the appeal property, are distinguished by two-storey bay windows with triangular or curved front gables, and front porches with red tiled roofs. There are many examples of hip-to-gable extensions, rear, side and front dormer extensions and single-storey, two-storey and three-storey rear extensions with flat, pitched and crown roofs in the surrounding area. The varied architecture and additional development have created a changing roof and building line along the street. Cumulatively, this gives the area an evolving, varied and visually interesting character and appearance. 5. The host dwelling has a single-storey detached side garage and forms the left hand half of a pair of semi-detached houses which have curved front gables atop their bay windows. There is a significantly wider side gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring property to the left, 24 The Drive, than between most semi- detached pairs which is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the area which is predominantly defined by narrow side gaps. The adjoining counterpart to the right of the host dwelling, 18 The Drive, has a hip-to-gable extension, rear dormer extension, single-storey flat-roofed rear extension, and two- storey crown-roofed rear extension. This makes this pair of semi-detached houses currently appear disproportionate and unbalanced. 6. The proposed two-storey crown-roofed rear extension and proposed rear dormer would balance the host dwelling’s semi-detached pair, making the host dwelling appear more complementary with its adjoining counterpart. The proposed extensions, visible from the rear from properties along The Drive and The Grove, would be seen in the context of similar developments at No 18 and in the surrounding area. Whilst the proposed two-storey rear extension would extend beyond the host dwelling’s side elevation, it would not be visible from the public realm as it would be flush with the proposed side extension and would be set in from the side boundary, reducing its prominence and preserving the character and appearance of the area. Whilst the width and depth of the proposed rear dormer would exceed the guidance contained within the Barnet London Borough Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) (SPD), it would be in keeping with the scale of rear dormers in the surrounding area and would appear as a proportionate addition to the host and attached dwelling. Appeal Decision 6008293 3 7. Whilst the width of the proposed part single-storey, part two-storey side extension would exceed the guidance contained within the SPD, its set back from the principal elevation, set in from the side boundary and set down from the main roof ridge would reduce its prominence, making it appear as a subservient addition. The host dwelling’s main hip roof would remain legible in views from the street as the existing roof line would be retained and the proposed side extension’s hip roof would match the pitch of the main roof. Due to the proposed side extension’s proportionate scale and sympathetic design, it would not appear as a dominant addition to the host dwelling and would preserve the character and appearance of the area. 8. The Council has referred to a previous appeal1 at the site, which was dismissed. The previous appeal scheme included a two-storey side extension that would have been only partially set down from the main roof ridge, and wider and less set back from the principal elevation than the proposed development. Due to the previous appeal scheme’s excessive scale and incongruous roof design, it would have appeared as a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling, more harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area than the current proposal. Consequently, I have given the previous appeal limited weight in my considerations. 9. For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CDH01 and CHD05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025). Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style, form and materials, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. Conditions 10. The Council have provided a list of conditions should the appeal be allowed. In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, a condition to ensure that the development accords with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. A separate condition specifying matching external materials is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. 11. The proposed windows on the left side extension directly face, and are in proximity to, multiple windows on the right side elevation of No 24. Therefore, a condition specifying the fitting of obscured glazing on the proposed windows is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of No 24. Similarly, a condition restricting the construction of windows and doors in side elevations is necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupants of No 18 and No 24. 12. I have no evidence before me to suggest that the roofs of the proposed extensions would be used as balconies, roof gardens or similar amenity areas. Therefore, a condition restricting their use is not necessary. 1 APP/N5090/D/25/3372242 Appeal Decision 6008293 4 Conclusion and Recommendation 13. 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 listed above. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR