Case study
Barnet – Planning Objection to a single storey side extension. Conversion of the garage into habitable room, insertion of window to replace the garage door
Introduction
Planning Voice prepared an objection in relation to a planning application under reference 24/4254/HSE, submitted to the London Borough of Barnet. The application sought permission for a single-storey side extension, the conversion of the garage into a habitable room, and the insertion of a window to replace the garage door.
The proposed development raised several concerns, particularly regarding harm to the character and appearance of the estate, loss of residential amenity, and parking constraints. A formal objection was submitted highlighting these issues, leading to the Council’s refusal of the application.
Main Issues
The objection to this planning application was structured around three key planning concerns: residential amenity, character and design, and parking constraints.
The proposed side extension was considered overbearing and out of character with the estate, as it brought the garage forward, disrupting the established pattern of recessed garages. This contradicted Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan, which seeks to ensure that developments preserve and enhance local character. The Council’s assessment acknowledged that there were no other examples of similar forward extensions in the area, reinforcing that this proposal would be an intrusive and incongruous addition to the streetscape.
From an amenity perspective, the extension created a narrow, enclosed passageway between properties, significantly reducing openness and natural light. The objection argued that this would result in a claustrophobic and overbearing effect on neighbouring residents. The Council’s refusal echoed this concern, stating that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the property and the wider locality.
In terms of parking and maneuverability, the conversion of the garage into a habitable space resulted in the loss of a valuable off-street parking space in an already constrained cul-de-sac. The Council recognised this issue in its decision, highlighting that previous applications for similar forward extensions had been refused due to parking constraints. The proposal failed to demonstrate alternative parking provisions, making it contrary to Policy DM17 of Barnet’s Local Plan, which requires developments to ensure that there is no negative impact on local parking capacity.
Outcome
As a result of the objection, the Council refused the application on the basis that the proposed forward extension was out of keeping with the local character, had an overbearing impact on residential amenity, and removed a valuable parking space. The decision confirmed that the development failed to comply with Barnet’s Local Plan, the London Plan, and the Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the importance of a well-structured planning objection. By referencing local planning policies and previous refusals, the objection reinforced the negative impact the proposal would have on the character of the estate, the quality of life for neighbours, and parking availability. The Council’s decision to refuse the application highlights the effectiveness of challenging inappropriate developments based on clear planning principles.
This successful objection serves as an example of how residents can effectively oppose a planning application by focusing on key planning policies, design principles, and material considerations that influence local decision-making.
Refused Application: Following the submission of our detailed planning objection the application was refused!
