Appeal 6000149

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal the Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (adopted 2025) (Local Plan), which replaced the previous Local Plan (2012)1. The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment on its relevance to the appeal. I have taken the comments received into account.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Watling Estate Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 20), a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling situated in a predominantly residential area where elongated rear gardens are commonplace. The site is within the Watling Estate Conservation Area (conservation area). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

As explained in the Watling Estate Conservation Area Character [name] (adopted 2007), the significance of the conservation area, when considered as a whole, derives in part from its distinctive character in terms of its layout, form, scale and building designs, including buildings in the main residential areas all being of a similar scale, form and height. With its limited scale and an architectural form which is in keeping with the terrace of which it forms a part, No 20 reflects these key characteristics of the conservation area. 1 Comprising the [name] and Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents.

Although exceptions exist, I observed that the rear gardens of nearby dwellings are predominantly open and free of substantially-sized outbuildings. In marked contrast this prevailing pattern of development, the proposed single-storey outbuilding would span across the full width of the plot. Whilst, according to the appellants’ figures, it would not cover an extensive area of the curtilage, it would nevertheless have a larger footprint than No 20 itself.

As such, although the materials of the proposed outbuilding would match those at No 20 and it would be sited at the bottom of the rear garden, the proposed development would clearly conflict with paragraph 14.40 of the SPD2 which provides that, amongst other things, back garden buildings should not be too large to become out-of-character with the area. With an uncharacteristically large scale and form in its context, it would undermine the distinctive character of the conservation area, described above.

I have had regard to the submitted photo image from [name], and to the addresses of numerous properties which are stated to benefit from outbuildings within their plots. In this regard, the Council have mentioned that there is a similar but unauthorised outbuilding at a nearby plot. Apart from the small number of planning permissions mentioned, few details have been provided to confirm whether or not the outbuildings shown on the photo image, and at the addresses specified, are authorised.

Nor have exact details been provided of the width, height, and footprint of the outbuildings identified, meaning that the degree to which they are comparable with the proposed development has not been accurately quantified. As it has not been demonstrated that these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development, they do not change my findings on this main issue.

The harm identified to the significance of the conservation area would be confined to the local area and therefore would be less than substantial, using the terminology found in the Framework3. However, as a notably discordant feature in its context which would be visible from nearby residential gardens and the upper-floor windows of nearby dwellings, the extent of the harm within this category would be substantial. This harm must be given considerable importance and weight. It must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development.

The proposed development would enhance the available accommodation on site, by way of creating a space to be used as a gym and an office. Storage space would also be provided. As these would mainly comprise private rather then public benefits, the public benefits of the proposed development attract little weight. The potential of securing an optimum viable use, referred to in Policy CDH08 of the Local Plan and at paragraph 215 of the Framework, relates to the designated heritage asset itself, rather than to benefits primarily accruing to the occupiers of No 20. The public benefits accordingly do not outweigh the harm identified, taking account of the great weight given to the conservation of the designated heritage asset, as required by paragraph 212 of the Framework.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. It would conflict with part A. d) 2 Residential Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document (2016) 3 National Planning Policy Framework of Policy CDH08 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, proposals should have regard to local historic context and character, including the appearance, scale, mass and height of buildings, use of materials, patterns of development and the layout of buildings and spaces, and with part C. a) of Policy CDH01 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, the Council will expect development proposals to respond sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context.

The proposed development would conflict with part D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021), which provides that development proposals should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).

As the definition of previously developed land given in the Glossary to the Framework excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, the Framework’s support for using suitable brownfield land is not applicable to the proposed development. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The appellants have stated that the proposed outbuilding would conform to permitted development compliances in terms of depth and height. However, it has not been demonstrated that any such outbuilding, if it were to be constructed via permitted development rights, would be significantly more harmful than the proposed development. Hence, this matter provides limited support for the proposed development, resulting in little weight in its favour.

As mentioned above, the proposed development would enhance the available accommodation on site. As the benefits in this regard would be mainly private in nature, they attract little weight in support of the proposed development.

Although the proposed development would, in principle, make an effective use of land, taking account of my findings on the main issue above, the proposed development would not comply with paragraph 129 e) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the importance of securing well-designed places. Similarly, as the proposed development would not deliver the most appropriate form for the site, part A. of Policy CDH01 of the Local Plan does not lend support for the proposed development. As such, little weight is given to the benefits of the proposed development in these respects, including its contribution towards optimising the potential of the site in land use terms.

It follows that the benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.