Double storey side extension to the dwelling house, 3.m2 front porch and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 July 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by H Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026. Appeal Ref: 6010582 1 Greenway Close, Colindale, Barnet, London NW9 5AZ • 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 Zhehan Yu against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 26/1139/HSE. • The development proposed is double storey side extension to the dwelling house, 3.m2 front porch and single storey rear extension. 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. On 17 August 2026, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published by the Government. This is a material consideration in the decision-making process from the day of publication. I am satisfied that the Framework’s content does not affect the substance of the main issue in the appeal. Since they would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation with the appeal parties. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site contains a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The site is located in a predominantly residential area and is prominently positioned on the corner of Greenway Close and Greenway Gardens. The side elevation of the dwelling is set back from the footway, broadly in line with, and following the setback pattern of, the frontages of the dwellings situated on Greenway Gardens. Whilst there are dwellings in the surrounding area which have been altered and extended, this consistent approach to the manner in which dwellings are set back from and address the street is evident elsewhere in the area too, and it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6010582 2 6. The first-floor side extension would project well beyond the frontages of adjacent dwellings on Greenway Gardens. The added bulk, mass and height of the first-floor extension would also erode the presently more open character of this corner plot. As a result, it would appear as a prominent and imposing feature in the street scene, at odds with the generally consistent building lines which prevail here. 7. I note the efforts which have been made to amend the development since some pre-application advice was obtained. I further note that the first-floor side extension includes, amongst other design facets, a recessed front elevation, a hipped roof, a set down of its roof ridge whilst matching materials are also proposed as part of the development. Despite these more meritorious facets of the design, for the particular reasons I have explained above, the first-floor extension would result in the development harming the character and appearance of the area. 8. The appellant refers to an extension at 47 The Greenway (No. 47), which I observed on my site visit. However, in contrast with the appeal site, No. 47 is positioned beside a bend on Greenway Gardens. As a result, in approaches to it, I find that the first-floor element of the extension at No. 47 does not have the same degree of prominence or intrusion into the street scene as would be the case with the appeal proposal. Moreover, planning decisions are heavily dependent on the case-specific evidence and circumstances. I have come to my own views on this appeal having regard to the evidence before me now and the particular circumstances of the case. Consequently, the development at No. 47 does not provide a justification for the proposal. 9. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) and policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025). Together, and amongst other matters, these policies require that developments respond to the existing character of a place, including the pattern of development, as well as maintain or improve the appearance of the locality or street scene. 10. The proposal would also conflict with guidance set out within the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD). This specifically highlights that extensions on corner sites will be particularly open to public view and that first-floor extensions on corner sites should not project beyond the building line of the adjoining road. The proposal’s first-floor extension contravenes this, would result in a harmfully prominent and imposing feature and, consequently, the development conflicts with the SPD’s overall objective of ensuring high-quality design. Although the SPD is guidance, it is a material consideration, and there is no justification to deviate from it in this instance. 11. Furthermore, the proposal would also be contrary to policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which advises that developments should respond to their context and integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Other Matters 12. The proposed development would facilitate the extension and remodelling of an existing dwelling. This would result in a modernised home which would better meet the needs of its occupants. The evidence before me indicates that, associated with this, improvements to the property’s energy efficiency and environmental performance would arise. These are benefits of the proposal. Appeal Decision 6010582 3 13. The appellant refers to a lawful development certificate for a roof extension involving a hip-to gable extension, rear dormer window with Juliet balcony and two front rooflights. The lawful development certificate as well as the plans for the development have not been provided, however, the description of the development to which the lawful development certificate relates omits the proposed first-floor side extension. This is the element of the proposal which the Council specifically object to, and which I have identified would result in harm. Consequently, since the development the subject of the lawful development certificate is not comparable to the appeal scheme, the fallback position it provides does not weigh in the proposal’s favour. 14. The absence of harm in terms of neighbouring amenity, parking, highway safety, trees, flooding and heritage are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal and do not alter my conclusions on the appeal overall. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. In my main issue, I have found that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with policies within the development plan. Overall, I find that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. 16. The Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Since the site lies within a settlement, the Framework indicates that development should be approved unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects when assessed against the Framework's national decision-making policies. 17. The benefits in this case are derived from the extension and remodelling of an existing dwelling, and the creation of a modernised and more energy efficient home. 18. Against this, the harm to the character and appearance of the area means that the proposal would conflict with policy DP3(1) of the Framework, and this policy sets out that proposals should be refused when such conflict would arise. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm. Taking these points together, the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. 19. Overall, there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. H Jones INSPECTOR