Part single, part two storey rear extension. Ground Floor side extension. First floor side extension. Conversion of garage into habitable room including new window to replace existing door. Alterations to porch. Changes to external finishes including remov al of Tudor boards at first floor level and first floor side facing window

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: 9 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008348 25 Faber Gardens, Hendon, Barnet, London NW4 4NP • 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 M. Hassan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 26/0482/HSE. • The development proposed is “Part single, part two storey rear extension. Ground Floor side extension. First floor side extension. Conversion of garage into habitable room including new window to replace existing door. Alterations to porch. Changes to external finishes including remov al of Tudor boards at first floor level and first floor side facing window”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Preliminary Matter 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal are unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by this. Main Issue 4. 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 5. Faber Gardens generally consists of detached two-storey houses with large rear gardens, white render and black timber (mock-Tudor) elevations and hipped tiled roofs. Houses along the street, including the appeal property, are distinguished by their mock-Tudor elevations and two-storey front-gabled or hipped bay windows. Many houses have altered over time creating a changing roof and building line along the street. Houses are set back from the highway behind paved driveways generally bounded by low brick walls. Together, this gives the area a varied and visually interesting character and appearance and an open feel. Appeal Decision 6008348 2 6. The host dwelling is a detached two-storey house, typical of development in the surrounding area. It is located in a large corner plot with its principal elevation set back from Faber Gardens behind a paved driveway bounded by low brick walls, and its side elevation set in from Talbot Crescent and bounded by tall timber fencing. It has a mono-pitched front porch and flat-roofed side garage attached to its right side elevation. 7. As the host dwelling has an existing side garage, the further side extension proposed would give the host dwelling a significantly broader frontage than that of neighbouring properties, appearing incongruous within the street scene. Whilst the proposed side extension would be of a minor scale relative to the host dwelling and would not extend significantly above the existing timber boundary fencing, its siting, flush with the appeal site’s boundary with Talbot Crescent, would make it appear as a prominent addition to the host dwelling and would erode the open feel of the area. It would be visible in the streetscapes of both Faber Gardens and Talbot Crescent, drawing the eye and harming the character and appearance of the area. 8. The proposed single-storey rear extension would extend significantly beyond the host dwelling’s rear elevation, and together with the proposed first-floor balcony, would appear as a dominant addition to the host dwelling. Although the proposed balcony’s materials would be visually permeable, its siting on the left of the rear elevation would make it appear prominent in views from Talbot Crescent, drawing attention to the excessive size of the appeal scheme in relation to the host dwelling. Whilst there are examples of balconies and larger rear extensions in the area, the cumulative effect of the scale of the proposed extensions, would be disproportionate to the host dwelling that would create a cramped appearance, harming the open feel and distinctive character of the area. Consequently, the examples that the appellant has drawn my attention to do not justify the unsympathetic design proposed. 9. I have been referred to a fallback position that exists through extant planning permission at the appeal site. The extant permission has a shallower single-storey rear extension and does not include the erection of a single-storey side extension or first-floor balcony. The appellant has argued that the fallback scheme is more harmful to the character and appearance of the area than the appeal scheme. The proposed two-storey rear extension’s taller crown roof responds more sensitively to the host dwelling and reduces the prominence of the extension; however the fallback scheme comprises fewer and smaller additions to the host dwelling which would appear subservient. Cumulatively these additions would be less harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area than the appeal scheme. Consequently, the real prospect of the construction of the fallback position does not justify allowing the appeal. 10. I have had regard to the appellant’s submission that the proposal enhances the functionality of the host dwelling. However, they have not demonstrated that the existing property does not provide suitable living accommodation, or that additional accommodation could not be achieved through a less harmful proposal. Consequently, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified of the proposal on the host dwelling and surrounding area. 11. For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The adverse effects identified under the main issue substantially outweigh any benefits derived from the Appeal Decision 6008348 3 proposed development. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CDH01 and CHD05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 (2025), and the guidance contained within the Barnet London Borough Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016). 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. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR