Appeal 6000147

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately reflects the proposal before me than the one set out on the planning application form.

The Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (LP) on 4 March 2025. This replaces the previous Local Plan referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal. The Council provided copies of Policies GSS01, CDH04, TRC02 and HOU03 of the LP which relate to delivering sustainable growth, tall buildings, transport infrastructure and residential conversions which are not relevant to the

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; • Highway safety; and • Protected species.

The appeal site is located in a predominately residential area, characterised by detached houses set back from the road.

I did not see other examples of lightwells to the front of properties in the street. However, I did see that a great number of the properties, including the appeal property, had been hard surfaced from the back edge of the pavement to the front elevations of the houses and that these areas were used for the parking of vehicles. Even if there had been lightwells elsewhere, I am not persuaded that they would be highly visible or prominent because of the proliferation of vehicles parked to the front of properties.

Moreover, the proposed lightwells would have surface mounted grilles at ground level, immediately adjacent to the front elevation of the host dwelling. They would be set well back from the pavement. For these reasons, they would not be a highly visible or intrusive feature in the street scene.

The properties in [address] are sited close together. The addition of flat roof dormer windows to both sides of the roof would not be highly visible as they would be set well back on the main roof. Both neighbouring properties have a flat roof dormer to the rear so the addition of a flat roof dormer to the rear roof slope of the appeal property would not appear out of character.

The single storey extension to the rear would have a flat roof. This would be similar to the extension to the neighbouring property. The extension to the proposed dressing room at first floor level would project out no further than the existing gable roof on the rear. The cumulative scale and siting of these extensions on the rear would not result in harm.

However, the first floor extension to the master bedroom would have a flat roof. Located to the rear of the property, the proposed extension would not be visible from the street. It would nonetheless be visible from the neighbouring properties and those to the rear. The height, bulk, design and siting of the extension would result in an incongruous form of development and would add to the proliferation of flat roofs to the rear of the property. The appeal proposal would not be in keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the property or the area.

Policy D5 of The London Plan adopted March 2021 (TLP) relating to inclusive design, does not appear to be relevant and the proposal would comply with Policy CDH06 of the LP which requires that grilles and lightwell treatment avoids creating visual clutter.

However, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 of TLP which requires that development is of an appropriate form which positively responds to a site’s context and local distinctiveness. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy CDH01 of the LP which promotes high quality design which responds to local character and roof form.

The provision of lightwells in the area to the front of the property would reduce the amount of hard surfacing available for the parking of cars.

However, the lightwells would be covered in a metal grille which would sit flush to the surface. It would be possible to secure details of the reinforcement of the lightwell and grille by condition. This would enable the area to be used for the parking of vehicles. As a result, the area available for the parking of vehicles would not be materially reduced and there would be no harmful effect on highway safety.

Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies T4, T6 and T6.1 of TLP which apply maximum parking standards and seek to ensure that development proposals do not increase road danger. I also find no conflict with Policies TRC01 and TRC03 of the LP which as well as applying maximum parking standards, seek to ensure that the impact of development on highway safety and the road network would be satisfactory.

All bat species are European protected species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEA) and a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) both dated March 2022 found that there were small gaps in the hung tiles on the elevations and in the roof tiles of the appeal property, which provided suitable roosting opportunities for bats. A Bat Survey Report (BSR) dated July 2022 subsequently found that there were no bat roosts in the dwelling or its garden.

Although there were no bats roosting at that time and the PEA and PRA concluded that the habitat on site was low value and offers limited connectivity to high-quality habitats, the BSR recorded that there was some bat activity at the front and rear of the property. Whilst this was recorded as being at a low to very low level, it is evidence that there is nonetheless, bat activity close to the property.

Those surveys were undertaken some three years ago. The unoccupied dwelling continues to provide suitable roosting opportunities and the BSR provides evidence of bat activity close to the property. Therefore, there is the potential for the building to be used as a bat roost which may be affected by the proposed development.

I have no doubt that work on site would cease if protected species were found but it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision1. A condition preventing work during the roosting season would not achieve this. From the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the extent to which bats may be affected by the proposed development has been adequately demonstrated.

The proposal would be contrary to Policy G6 of TLP and Policy ECC07 of the LP which seek to protect and conserve priority species. 1 Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – [name] and their Impact within the Planning System

The property benefits from an extant planning permission (EPP) for the demolition of the dwelling and the erection of a new dwelling under a crown roof.2 This included a first floor projection to the rear of the property and would be a viable fallback, should the appeal fail. However, rather than having a flat roof, the first floor projection in the EPP had a hipped roof which reflects the use of hipped roofs on the main dwelling and in the wider area. Given that the fallback position would be less harmful than the proposal before me, it carries very limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

There is no evidence before me that a hipped roof on the first floor extension would prevent the appellant from making efficient use of the roof space.

I have not been provided with copies of representations received by the Council from interested parties. However, as I have identified harm in respect of the main issues, these are unlikely to raise other matters on which my decision turns.

[name] have found that the proposal would not result in harm to highway safety, I have found that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area and that the presence or otherwise of bats as a protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development has not been adequately demonstrated.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.