Two storey rear extension (Part retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by R Higgins BSc MRes Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008726 40 Woodlands, Golders Green, Barnet, London, NW11 9QU • 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 Isaac Lipschitz against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 26/0138/RCU. • The development proposed is Two storey rear extension (Part retrospective). 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 Matters 3. During my site visit, I observed that the rear extension has already been constructed. The appeal therefore relates in part to development that has been carried out and is consequently part retrospective in nature. I also noted that the development as built differs from both the as-built and the proposed plans before me. 4. In particular, the as-built drawings omit a rooflight that has been installed on the single-storey rear projection. In addition, on the as-built plans the ground floor rear elevation includes double glazed doors on the right-hand side, which were not present at the time of the site visit. The proposed scheme also introduces a different roof form from that which currently exists on site. 5. Therefore, in the interests of clarity and fairness, I have made my assessment based on the submitted plans, as that it what has been applied for. The description taken from the council’s decision notice reflects this. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential area characterised by detached properties of a similar scale and form. The houses are generally set back from the highway behind front gardens, many of which have been adapted for Appeal Decision 6008726 2 off-street parking. Mature trees line the street, contributing positively to its suburban character. 8. The surrounding dwellings display a coherent architectural rhythm. Most are finished in a mixture of red brick and white render, with red tiled features and elements of mock-Tudor detailing, creating a consistent visual identity along the street. The host property reflects some aspects of this character, while being finished in white render with slate roof tiles. 9. There is a clear and established pattern of development in the locality, including the presence of front and side dormers as well as rear extensions of varying forms. These additions form part of the evolving character of the area and contribute to the mixed roofscape visible from both the street and neighbouring plots. 10. Due to the size and scale of the first floor addition, extending across almost the full width of the host dwelling, it would appear as a dominant feature. When viewed alongside the existing rear dormer, the cumulative massing would result in a visually bulky and incongruous development. As a consequence, the extension fails to read as a subservient addition to the original dwelling and instead appears incongruous in both scale and proportion. 11. The proposed roof design compounds these concerns. Its relationship with the existing rear dormer would appear awkward, giving an incongruous and disjointed appearance with poor integration between the dwelling and the proposed development. 12. Overall, the combined width, massing, and roof configuration of the proposed development would materially harm the appearance of the dwelling and its rear elevation. The adverse effects identified under the main issue substantially outweigh any benefits derived from the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed development conflicts with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (adopted 2025), Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) and the Barnet Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). These policies, amongst other things, collectively seek to ensure new development compliments the existing building, remains subordinate and is high quality design. Other Matters 13. The appellant has referred to an approved first-floor extension at a neighbouring property (No. 42) which would extend to the shared boundary. However, I have been provided with no further details of that scheme, its context, or the considerations that informed its approval. In the absence of this information, I am only able to afford this limited weight in my assessment. 14. The appellant has also highlighted a scheme within the area that had similar aspects (No. 55). I do not have the full details of the circumstances that led to these developments being approved and cannot therefore be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. Consequently, I have assigned limited weight to this particular scheme. Appeal Decision 6008726 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. R Higgins APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR