Planning application · Barnet
24/2033/HSE.
78 Kings Drive Edgware HA8 8EF
Householder at 78 Kings Drive Edgware HA8 8EF, received 23 May 2024 — refused on 19 Nov 2024 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarnet profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Nov 2024
26 wks
Decision time
18 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
31
Documents
31 linked
2
Objections
18 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
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?
Part single, part two storey side and rear extension following demolition of the existing conservatory. Erection of a rear outbuilding (Retrospective)
Reference
24/2033/HSE
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA8 8EF
Ward
Council
Received
23 May 2024
Target date
18 Jul 2024
Decision date
19 Nov 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/2033/HSE
Type
Householder Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA8 8EF
Ward
Council
Received
23 May 2024
Target date
18 Jul 2024
Decision date
19 Nov 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
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 19 Nov 2024, determined by the planning committee — 26 weeks from submission (18 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 May 2024
Application received
18 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
19 Nov 2024
Committee decision: Refused
23 May 2024
Application received
18 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
19 Nov 2024
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The part single, part two-storey side and rear extensions and the outbuilding, by
reason of their size, height and siting, constitute a disproportionate intervention,
incongruous to the prevailing pattern of development and to the detriment of the
character and appearance of the host property and street scene and contrary to
Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CS1 and CS5 of the LB Barnet: Local
Plan (Core Strategy) DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet: Local Plan
(Development Management Policies) DPD (2012) and Residential Design Guidance
SPD (2016)
2
The outbuilding by reason of its size, height and siting, constitutes a visually
obtrusive development in the outlook from the habitable room at ground floor level
to the front of No 76 Kings Drive, to the detriment of the visual and residential
amenities of neighbouring occupiers and contrary to Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet:
Local Plan (Development Management Policies) DPD (2012) and Residential
Design Guidance SPD (2016).
1
The part single, part two-storey side and rear extensions and the outbuilding, by
reason of their size, height and siting, constitute a disproportionate intervention,
incongruous to the prevailing pattern of development and to the detriment of the
character and appearance of the host property and street scene and contrary to
Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CS1 and CS5 of the LB Barnet: Local
Plan (Core Strategy) DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet: Local Plan
(Development Management Policies) DPD (2012) and Residential Design Guidance
SPD (2016)
2
The outbuilding by reason of its size, height and siting, constitutes a visually
obtrusive development in the outlook from the habitable room at ground floor level
to the front of No 76 Kings Drive, to the detriment of the visual and residential
amenities of neighbouring occupiers and contrary to Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet:
Local Plan (Development Management Policies) DPD (2012) and Residential
Design Guidance SPD (2016).
Policies cited
D3
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
18
Total comments
20
Objections
2
In support
18
Total comments
20
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
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.