A proposal to extend a roof at 16 Hillside Gardens has been refused by Barnet Council's Planning Committee, despite a local councillor's call-in. Councillor Shuey Gordon had argued that the proposed roof extension was in keeping with the character of the area.
The application sought permission for a roof extension involving a hip to gable, a rear dormer window with a Juliet balcony, one rear-facing and three front-facing rooflights, and a change to the first-floor side extension roof. The plan was to alter the roof from a hip to a gable to match the main roof.
Council planning officers recommended refusal, citing concerns over the siting, design, size and scale
of the proposed extension. They argued that it would result in an unduly bulky and visually obtrusive development, failing to respect the character of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. This contravenes policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). These policies aim to prevent developments where 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
1.
According to the Updated 252043HSE committee report, the key considerations included that similar proposals for hip-to-gable and rear dormer windows had been previously refused. Officers considered the current proposal unacceptable because of its scale, even though it had been reduced in size compared to earlier plans.
The report also stated that the proposal did not comply with residential design guidance because of the size of the rear dormer window and that the hip-to-gable proposal would unbalance the pair of semi-detached houses, as the other house does not currently have a gable roof.
During the meeting, officers noted that a certificate of lawfulness had been previously granted for a similar roof extension. However, this certificate required a two-stage development process, including the removal of the existing roof on top of the side extension to achieve a flat roof before building the hip-to-gable and rear dormer. The officers stated that the finished product of the current proposal would be materially different from the certificate of lawfulness, because of the additional gable roof on top of the side extension.
Emily Benedict, the agent for the application, argued that the only amendment being put before the committee was a design improvement, replacing an approved flat roof with a gable-ended pitched roof that lines seamlessly with the existing architectural style of the main house. She stated that this was not a question of additional bulk or massing, but simply one of improving design quality.
Ms. Benedict also noted that some assertions within the committee report did not accurately reflect the on-site context, pointing to other properties in the area with full-width hip-to-gable roofs, including over their first-floor side extensions. She stated that numbers 2, 10, and 35 Hillside Gardens feature these types of roofs. She urged members to take a pragmatic and design-led view, arguing that the proposal concerned a small refinement to an already improved scheme.
Despite these arguments, the committee voted to refuse the application. Four councillors voted in support of the officer's recommendation to refuse, while one voted against.
1 This would cause harm to the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and the wider locality.