We recently won a planning enforcement appeal in Barnet after the council tried to require the demolition of a rear extension and roof extension at a family home in Kingsmead.
The case is a useful example of how enforcement appeals are often more complicated than they first appear. This was not a case of a homeowner simply ignoring the planning system. The owners had already obtained planning permission for a single-storey rear extension. They had also previously obtained a Lawful Development Certificate for a rear dormer to the original roof. The difficulty arose because the works that were actually built combined a rear extension with a dormer above it.
That created a technical problem under the permitted development rules.
The background
The property is a semi-detached chalet bungalow in Barnet. It sits in a varied residential area close to King Edward Road. The houses in the area have been altered in many different ways, with rear extensions, roof extensions, dormers and other additions forming a strong part of the local character.
Barnet Council had issued a Lawful Development Certificate in September 2021 for a rear dormer roof extension to the original house. It then granted planning permission in June 2022 for a single-storey rear extension.
The owners implemented the rear extension. As the work progressed, they were advised that a dormer could be added above the new extension under permitted development rights. They checked the General Permitted Development Order themselves and believed, in good faith, that the works complied with the rules.
The problem was that the permitted development fallback depended on the works being carried out in two separate stages: first the rear extension, then the roof extension. Because the dormer had been constructed as part of the same overall building operation, Barnet took the view that the development was not permitted development.
The council then served an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of both the single-storey rear extension and the rear dormer roof extension, and requiring the dwelling to be restored to its previous condition.
The retrospective application
Before the appeal, we had submitted a retrospective planning application on the owners’ behalf.
The application was supported by a detailed planning statement. We explained the planning history, the design of the proposal, the fallback position and the character of the surrounding area.
The statement made the point that the dormer was located to the rear of the property, was not visible from the street except in limited or oblique views, and was set down from the ridge and away from the sides of the roof. It also explained that roof extensions were very common in the area. Our supporting statement identified 26 of the 50 properties on Kingsmead and 14 of the 26 properties on the adjacent part of King Edward Road as having some form of roof extension.
Barnet refused the application. The council’s only objection was to the character and appearance of the roof extension. It did not object to the principle of extending the house, and it did not allege any unacceptable harm to neighbours’ living conditions.
The enforcement appeal
We appealed against the enforcement notice and also appealed against the refusal of planning permission.
The appeal case had three main strands.
First, the single-storey rear extension itself was acceptable. It had already been granted planning permission, projected a similar distance to the neighbouring rear extension and did not cause material harm.
Second, the roof extension had to be considered in its real local context. Kingsmead and the adjoining streets are not made up of untouched, uniform houses. The area contains a wide variety of dormers, roof enlargements and rear additions. Some are larger and more visible than the appeal proposal. The fact that many of those extensions were built using permitted development rights did not mean they could be ignored. They formed part of the actual built character of the area.
Third, the owners had a strong fallback position. If the enforcement notice were upheld, they could remove the dormer, complete the single-storey rear extension and then carry out a similar roof extension as permitted development. That was not a theoretical possibility. The site already had a relevant planning history, including the earlier Lawful Development Certificate for a large rear dormer, and the owners had a clear need for the additional living space.
This fallback argument became central to the appeal.
The inspector’s decision
The inspector allowed the appeal.
He accepted that the single-storey rear extension caused little harm. He also found that, even with the roof extension, the overall accommodation created was not unduly substantial or disproportionate to the size of the original building.
The inspector did have concerns about the design of the roof extension. He found that its form, depth and width created a relatively high degree of massing behind the main roof, and that it conflicted with Barnet’s design guidance and the new Barnet Local Plan design policies.
The inspector found that the visual harm was limited because the roof extension was at the rear and views of it were restricted. He also found that there was significant variation in the local area, including large-scale dormers, side and rear roof additions, changes to roof pitches, flat-roofed extensions and wraparound extensions. In that local context, he concluded that the development had only a negligible effect on the wider character of the locality.
Most importantly, the inspector accepted the permitted development fallback. He found that a two-phase approach — first completing the single-storey extension, then adding a roof extension — was a realistic and credible outcome. He also accepted that this fallback could lead to a similar result and might be less desirable than the development already built.
The inspector concluded that the fallback position provided a clear justification for departing from the development plan. The enforcement notice was quashed and planning permission was granted. The related planning appeals were also allowed.
Why this case is important
This case shows why planning enforcement appeals need to be handled carefully.
The council had identified a real technical breach. The owners had not carried out the works in the correct sequence for the development to benefit from permitted development rights. Acting in good faith did not, by itself, make the development lawful.
But that did not mean the council’s enforcement notice should stand.
The key question was what would actually be achieved by requiring demolition. In this case, the likely outcome was that the owners would remove the dormer, complete the ground floor extension and then rebuild a similar roof extension under permitted development rights. That would have caused delay, expense and disruption, but would not have produced a materially better planning outcome.
The case also shows the importance of proper local evidence. It was not enough simply to say that other houses nearby had been extended. We had to show the extent of roof extensions in the immediate area, explain why they formed part of the local character and demonstrate that the council’s objection was not consistent with the actual pattern of development on Kingsmead and King Edward Road.
Barnet’s residential areas often contain a varied mix of older houses, bungalows, roof conversions, side additions and rear extensions. A refusal or enforcement notice based on character and appearance can often be challenged if the council has not properly assessed the real context.
If Barnet Council has refused your retrospective application or served an enforcement notice, it is important to act quickly. Enforcement notices have strict appeal deadlines, and once the deadline passes, your options become much more limited.
Barnet is one of the most active councils when it comes to planning enforcement, serving more notices each year and almost any other local authority in England.
Just Planning regularly acts for homeowners and landowners in planning appeals and enforcement appeals in Barnet and across London.
