Single storey side infill extension and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing outbuilding and greenhouse. Single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011424 6 Cool Oak Lane, Colindale, Barnet, London NW9 7BJ • 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 Ms Neesha Chauhan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 26/1467/HSE. • The development proposed is a single storey side infill extension and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing outbuilding and greenhouse. Single storey front 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 Matters 3. Having reviewed the most recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, I am satisfied that they do 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 main parties. 4. It is clear from the delegated report that the Council is satisfied that the proposed front extension is acceptable and the remaining matter in contention is the proposed rear extension. I have therefore defined the main issue on this basis. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, 4 Cool Oak Lane (no 4), having particular regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site hosts a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. It has a reasonably sized garden, with a single storey garage extending down the boundary with the neighbouring property, no 4. Beyond the garage is a free-standing greenhouse. 7. The outlook from the host dwelling and its surrounding neighbours is characterised by the residential development typical of its urban location. No 4 also has a notable level of verdancy in the form of mature trees within its garden and that of its Appeal Decision 6011424 2 neighbouring properties. No 4 is also situated at a slightly lower land level than the appeal property and given the orientation of the buildings and the natural path of the sun, the existing outbuilding casts a shadow into the garden. 8. I note that the proposed extension would, at the furthest point from the host dwelling, replace an existing greenhouse. Whilst the scale of the replacement structure is broadly similar, the current greenhouse allows a degree of diffused light to be filtered through. Not only does this allow the filtered daylight and sunlight to be received into the garden of no 4, but it also aids in reducing any existing sense of imposition. The replacement with a solid walled structure as is proposed would be notably more overbearing when experienced from the garden of no 4, extending the amount of built form along the boundary. Due to the extent of the proposal’s projection, its proximity to the shared boundary and the neighbouring plots lower land level, the proposal would cause substantial harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. 9. Furthermore, the existing layout at the appeal site means that there are gaps between the greenhouse, the rear boundary and the outbuilding. The loss of these and replacement with a continuous built form would reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received into the neighbouring garden, which would be particularly noticeable given the proposed proximity to the boundary. The increased level of overshadowing caused by the proposal, in conjunction with the heightened level of overbearing, would have an unacceptable effect on living conditions. 10. I am aware that permission has previously been granted for a rear extension at this site to replace the existing outbuilding (25/0516/HSE). The scheme subject to this appeal is proposed to extend to a greater depth than the previous proposal. Whilst I acknowledge that the approved scheme represents a fallback position which could realistically be implemented, this would represent a less harmful scenario than the proposal before me. 11. My attention has been drawn to a rear extension at no 8 Cool Oak Lane. This extends to the full depth of the plot and would be likely to have a similar adverse effect on the neighbouring property, as such, an existing poor relationship does not provide support for the proposal. Nonetheless, I have not been provided with any details of the circumstances under which any planning permission was granted in order to consider this further. 12. Overall, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 4 Cool Oak Lane. As such in that regard, it fails to comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) which together require development to deliver appropriate outlook and allow for acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight by avoiding significant adverse impacts. 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 dismissed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6011424 3 Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. B Plenty INSPECTOR