Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 22 April 2025

by D Wilson BSc (Hons) MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 13 May 2025

Appeal Ref: 6000120 19 Heathfield Gardens, Golders Green, Barnet, London NW11 9HY

• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.

• The application Ref is 24/4071/HSE.

• The development proposed is part single part two storey rear extension.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matter

2. The appellant submitted a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment with the appeal which provides details on the sunlight and daylight impacts of the development. The assessment was available when the appeal was submitted, and the Council had the opportunity to comment. The assessment provides clarity rather than any significant changes to the proposed scheme. Accordingly, I am satisfied that no one would be prejudiced were my decision to have had regard to the assessment.

Main Issue

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

Reasons

4. The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling that occupies a moderately sized plot. The wider area is predominantly residential and mostly consists of similar sized semi-detached dwellings.

5. The Council’s Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 (Residential SPD) states that two storey rear extensions which are closer than 2 metres to a neighbouring boundary and project more than 3 metres in depth are not normally considered acceptable. This is because they can be too bulky and dominant and have a detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbours.

6. The proposed first floor extension would be located close to the boundary with the neighbouring property, No 17 Heathfield Gardens and would be over 3m in depth. The closeness of the extension combined with its overall height would result in feature that would be clearly visible from the rear facing windows and garden of No

7. The overall height and closeness would be particularly dominant and overbearing when viewed from the garden of No 17 and would result in a harmful outlook for these occupiers.

8. The Council have found that the proposed development would result in a harmful loss of sunlight and daylight for the occupiers of No 17. In response the appellant has submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment with the appeal. The assessment uses guidance contained within the BRE Report ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ (3rd Edition, 2022).

9. The assessment found that while there would be reductions in both daylight and sunlight for the occupiers of No 17, all windows and the garden area would retain in excess of 80% of their current values. I am therefore satisfied that the occupiers of No 17 would retain an acceptable level of sunlight and daylight.

10. Notwithstanding my findings on sunlight and daylight, the proposed development

would result in an unacceptable outlook for the occupiers of No 17. It would be contrary to Policy CS5 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document Adopted September 2012, Policies DM01 and DM02 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012 and guidance contained within the Residential SPD and Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Sustainable Design and Construction October 2016. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development protects and enhances the gardens of residential properties and allow adequate outlook for adjoining occupiers.

Other Matter

11. I note that the appellant considers that the Council did not engage with the

appellant during the applications consideration. However, I am only in a position to consider the planning merits of the appeal before me.

Conclusion

12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

D Wilson

INSPECTOR