Appeal 6000014

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council have referred to an incorrect local listing description within their officer report. I have since been provided with a copy of the correct listing description for the appeal property and have assessed the proposal on this basis.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development was complete and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the setting of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area and Locally Listed Building.

The appeal property is located within the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area (CA) which is predominantly a residential area with significant open spaces. The topography of the area is gently undulating with long range views towards the spire and domes of the [address] buildings being possible from almost every road in the CA.

The appeal property is located within character area 5 which is situated to the southwest of the CA. The area has a distinct rural character with tree lined streets and there are an exceptional number of individual houses of note that have been designed by different architects, many of which are locally listed. The significance of the appeal site insofar as it relates to the CA is the architectural interest of the building that contributes to the exceptional number of houses of note within the CA.

The appeal building is locally listed, and its significance is derived from the buildings architectural interest through its green pantiled ridge roof with catslide. The brickwork is yellow, has timber sash windows to front and a bullseye window to gable end. The building is detached and set in a corner position within a moderately sized plot that is set within a spacious setting, visible from [site address] and [address].

The development relates to the installation of security cameras that are attached to the exterior of the appeal building. There are five installations in total which are modest in size, white and are generally located at a height above the ground floor windows and doors.

Three of the installations are visible from [site address] and [address] and due to the overall height and white colour they are visible and prominent from close- and longer-range views and detract from the interesting architectural features of the building. The appeal building is one of the first buildings of note located within the CA when approaching from the southwest, its detached and spacious character means it is particularly prominent and attention is drawn to the installations which detracts from the significance of the CA.

The appellant suggests that they have followed the Council’s guidance on security cameras. However, guidance contained within the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area Design Guidance (Design Guidance) states that security cameras may be approved if sited unobtrusively in discreet locations which the proposal is contrary to.

I acknowledge that there are numerous security installations in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, I have been provided with very limited information on the exact circumstances of these installations being allowed or constructed. In any case, of the many examples provided they all relate to different styles of security cameras in different locations. Furthermore, from the images provided none of the properties occupy a position as prominent at the appeal site, nor do they have the same architectural features that the cameras are detracting from. The presence of the other cameras does not therefore justify allowing the appeal.

I note that hedging is proposed to be installed at a height of 2.25m through a different planning application which may obscure the views of the cameras. However, I have not been provided with details of such works and how the height of the hedge will be controlled. I am also not satisfied that a condition requiring the hedge to be a certain height would meet the tests outlined within Planning Practice Guidance.

I therefore find that the development causes harm to the setting of the CA and locally listed building and would cause harm to their significance.

I note that the development has retrospective consent from the Hamstead Garden Suburb Trust. However, this is a separate process that does not mitigate the need for planning permission.

The appellant considers that the Council did not engage during the consideration of a different application, have not provided guidance on how the proposal could be adjusted, are inconsistent in their decision making and a previous disagreement with the heritage team may indicate a continued influence from prior contentions. However, I am only in a position to consider the planning merits of the case.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Given the scale of the proposed development, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

No public benefits have been advanced by the appellant and due to the nature of the development, the only benefits relate to the private security of the occupiers of the appeal building. I nonetheless acknowledge the security concerns of the appellant, particularly due to a previous attempt to access the front gate, albeit these are private benefits.

Therefore, when considered as a whole, there are no benefits that outweigh the great weight I afford to the conservation of the CA. The proposal would also conflict with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document September 2012, Policies DM01 and DM06 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012 and guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 and Design Guidance. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development delivers positive benefits that conserve and enhance the historic environment, protect and enhance locally listed buildings and have regard to the local historic context.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.