Planning application · Barnet
22/1344/HSE.
57 Richmond Road Barnet EN5 1SF
Householder at 57 Richmond Road Barnet EN5 1SF, received 14 Mar 2022 — refused on 3 May 2022 (delegated, Madara Tukisa).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarnet profile →
Refused
Outcome
3 May 2022
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 linked
8
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Dismissed
Record from the Barnet planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Single storey side extension and two-storey rear extension (amended description)
Reference
22/1344/HSE
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN5 1SF
Ward
Council
Received
14 Mar 2022
Validated
15 Mar 2022
Target date
10 May 2022
Decision date
3 May 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
22/1344/HSE
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN5 1SF
Ward
Council
Received
14 Mar 2022
Validated
15 Mar 2022
Target date
10 May 2022
Decision date
3 May 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Barnet portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 3 May 2022, delegated decision by Madara Tukisa — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
14 Mar 2022
Application received
15 Mar 2022
Application validated
10 May 2022
Statutory target date
3 May 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Madara Tukisa
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Dismissed
14 Mar 2022
Application received
15 Mar 2022
Application validated
10 May 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
3 May 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Madara Tukisa
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by virtue of its depth and siting, would
constitute a bulky, incongruous and insubordinate addition that would create a
detrimental impact on the character of the locally listed property and the
surrounding area, contrary to Policy CS5 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012),
Policy DM01 and DM06 of Barnet's Development Management Policies Document
DPD (2012) and the guidance contained within Barnet's Residential Design
Guidance SPD (2016).
2
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by virtue of depth and siting, would create
an adverse impact to neighbouring amenity in terms of appearing overbearing, and
causing significant levels of loss of light and outlook. The proposal is contrary to
Policy CS5 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of Barnet's
Development Management Policies Document DPD (2012) and the guidance
contained within Barnet's Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).
1
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by virtue of its depth and siting, would
constitute a bulky, incongruous and insubordinate addition that would create a
detrimental impact on the character of the locally listed property and the
surrounding area, contrary to Policy CS5 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012),
Policy DM01 and DM06 of Barnet's Development Management Policies Document
DPD (2012) and the guidance contained within Barnet's Residential Design
Guidance SPD (2016).
2
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by virtue of depth and siting, would create
an adverse impact to neighbouring amenity in terms of appearing overbearing, and
causing significant levels of loss of light and outlook. The proposal is contrary to
Policy CS5 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of Barnet's
Development Management Policies Document DPD (2012) and the guidance
contained within Barnet's Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).
Policies cited
CS5DM01DM06
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
8
In support
0
Total comments
8
Objections
8
In support
0
Total comments
8
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.