A proposal to extend properties at 38 and 40 Golders Manor Drive has been refused by Barnet Council's Planning Committee, following a call-in by Councillor Peter Zinkin.
The application sought permission for roof extensions, including hip-to-gable conversions and rear dormer windows, as well as a first-floor rear extension and new front porches to both properties. Councillor Zinkin called in the application, arguing that the proposed dormer and first floor rear extension is in keeping with the character of the area and would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. He stated that as the alterations are proposed to the rear, there will be no impact on the street scene and that the bulk of the extensions have already been approved under planning permission 24/2015/FUL, with the infill being a practical way to provide additional habitable accommodation rather than expand in a harmful way.
During the Planning Committee (New) meeting on 21 July 2025, planning officers presented their assessment of the application, recommending refusal. They argued that the cumulative scale, bulk, and design of the proposed extensions would result in a dominant and uncharacteristic form of development, harming the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and the wider locality. Officers stated that the proposed roof alterations would eliminate the dual pitch or hip to roof resulting in a bulky box like structure that appears top-heavy and visually discordant, subsuming the original characteristics of the original dwelling houses.
Joey Benyarve, speaking on behalf of the applicants, argued that the scheme was modest and neighbourly, designed to avoid piecemeal development and deliver a balanced design. He highlighted that similar first-floor rear extensions had already been approved at neighbouring properties.
However, officers argued that while there are roof extensions within the vicinity of the site namely numbers 42 and 44 these are not really comparable to the cumulative scale and bulk of the extensions proposed at the host site. They acknowledged that the first floor extensions existing at numbers 42 and 44 on their own may be comparable albeit approximately 0.5 meters less in depth at the first floor level but that it's the cumulative impact of not just looking at the first floor here or just the roof extensions, but looking at the cumulative impact of the extensions, and looking around the surrounding area there isn't anything comparable to what is proposed at numbers 38 and 40.
Officers maintained their position that the cumulative impact of the roof and first-floor extensions would be overly large and disproportionate, subsuming the original characteristics of the properties. They acknowledged that a separate application for just a first-floor rear extension might be acceptable, but that the current proposal was unacceptable in its entirety.
Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application, siding with the officers' recommendation. The decision highlights the importance of considering the cumulative impact of extensions on the character and appearance of residential areas, as outlined in the Barnet Local Plan 2025 and the Residential Design Guidance SPD. The proposed development, by reason of the cumulative bulk, scale, and design of the first floor rear extensions and roof alterations, including hip-to-gable conversions and dormers, would result in a dominant, incongruous, and uncharacteristic form of development that fails to appear subordinate to the host buildings. The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and the wider locality, contrary to Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).