Single storey rear extension with depth of 4.38m

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by Lucy Cuthbertson BSc Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009381 23 Cyprus Road, Finchley, Barnet, London, N3 3SD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Xi Chen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 26/1222/PNH. • The development proposed is Single storey rear extension with depth of 4.38m . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Single storey rear extension with a maximum depth of 4.38m, eaves height of 3.0m and a maximum height of 3.2m at 23 Cyprus Road, London, N33SD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/1222/PNH, and the details and plans submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A. 4(2). 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. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse, subject to limitations, conditions and restrictions. 4. Where an application is made for prior approval for development, paragraph A.4(3) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply (or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies) with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would comply with the limitations in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 and the conditions in paragraph A.3 of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. 6. The provisions of the GPDO under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 (7) require the local planning authority to assess the effect of the APO 6009381 2 proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises, where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development. In this case, there has been an objection to the proposed development from a neighbour, therefore prior approval is required. Main Issue 7. The effect of the proposed development on the amenity of the occupiers of No 25 Cyprus Road. Reason for the Recommendation 8. The appeal property forms part of a terrace of three-storey townhouses within an established suburban residential area. The dwellings have narrow plots and are in close proximity to neighbouring properties. The appeal property occupies a mid- terrace position and is bound by adjoining residential properties on either side. Rear gardens are generally long and enclosed by boundary fencing and planting, creating a relatively contained environment when viewed from ground-floor level. 9. The surrounding terrace exhibits a varied pattern of rear projections and extensions. In particular, No. 21 benefits from an existing rear extension. The site therefore exists within a context where rear additions form part of the established character and where a degree of enclosure and mutual overlooking between neighbouring properties is inherent to the built form. 10. The shared boundary between the appeal property and No. 25 Cyprus Road is currently defined by substantial close-boarded fencing together with mature vegetation. These features provide an effective visual barrier between the properties and already limit intervisibility and outward views at ground-floor level. As such, the existing experience from the rear garden of No. 25 is one of a contained and enclosed environment with limited outlook. 11. It is also noted that a pergola structure presently occupies the area where the extension is proposed. Although temporary in nature, the pergola contributes to the existing built form within the rear garden and reinforces the established perception of enclosure along this part of the property. Consequently, the proposal would not introduce built development into an otherwise open area but would instead occupy a location where a structure already exists and is experienced by neighbouring occupiers. 12. Taking all of these matters together, I conclude that the proposal would not result in an overbearing relationship or an unacceptable sense of enclosure. The resulting effects would not amount to undue harm to the amenity of adjoining occupiers for the purposes of paragraph A.4 of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO. 13. The Council has assessed the proposed development with reference to local development plan policies and associated guidance documents. However, prior approval is a different procedure to a planning application, and the GPDO does not require decision-makers to have regard to, or make decisions in accordance with, the development plan. The development plan policies and associated guidance are therefore relevant material considerations insofar as they seek to protect amenity but are not determinative. APO 6009381 3 Conditions 14. The GPDO grants planning permission subject to several conditions including a condition relating to the materials to be used and a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The GPDO also allows for prior approval to be granted subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. In this case, there are no additional conditions necessary in relation to neighbour amenity. 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 allowed. Lucy Cuthbertson 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 allowed. T Law INSPECTOR