Appeal 6000229

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the decision notice, for reasons of clarity. The appellant has provided their agreeance to this amended description.

Planning decisions must be based on the development plan policies prevailing at the time of determination. The Council has recently adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (BLP). As a result, the BLP now forms part of the development plan. It has replaced Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (CS) and Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (DMP). The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevant policies of the BLP during the appeal process.

The first refusal reason references policies from the CS and DMP, amongst others. The Council have not advised which BLP policies would replace the referenced policies. However, the appellant has provided a table, which is clearly a Council document, that lists the newly adopted policies and their equivalent policies from the previous local plan. Using this table, the relevant policies would be Policy CDH01, CDH04 and HOU03 of the BLP. The Council have advised that these policies are relevant to the application in their Statement of Case. I have therefore assessed this main issue against those policies, and the relevant London Plan policies as listed in the refusal reason.

The second reason for refusal concerns the lack of a formal undertaking to enable an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to mitigate against the traffic impacts arising from the occupiers of the development being entitled to an on-street parking permit. At appeal stage the appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) to address this. I will consider this matter later.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a four-storey building located on [address]. The building comprises retail units on the ground floor and residential units on the upper floors. There is some parking to the rear of the site. The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses including retail and residential.

[address], building heights generally increase as you travel towards [site address] town centre, reaching 10+ storeys at the ‘Artsdepot’ development in the centre. Properties immediately surrounding the site, along [address], are predominately three storeys in height.

The evidence before me outlines how the proposed works would increase the height of the building by less than a metre, with the new flats accommodated in the roof. However, the roof slope would be much steeper than that of the existing. This, coupled with the increase in height and the erection of 17 roof dormers would have the appearance of an additional storey.

The effect of this would interrupt the continuity of declining buildings heights as you travel north along [address], out of the town centre and into the more residential area. Whilst there is no objection to the use of dormers or a mansard roof form in isolation, given they are not uncommon features within the area, the use of 17 dormers on the roof coupled with the increase in height, would increase the perceived bulk and mass of the building, resulting in a rather top-heavy appearance. The property does not benefit from any set back from the footpath and, as a result, the building would appear as unduly dominant within the street scene.

Although there are several taller buildings in the surrounding area, these are in the minority. Furthermore, [address], [address], 928 and [address] are situated south of the site, where building heights generally increase towards [site address] town centre.

As indicated on the appellant’s buildings heights plan and birds eye view images, the buildings at [address] and The Willows are both four to five stories in height and north of the site. These properties are however set back from the road which serves to soften their visual impact on the street scene. Notwithstanding this, as outlined previously, the area immediately surrounding the site, and particularly north of the site, is predominately characterised by three storey buildings. It is therefore my view that the above properties are in the minority. In any case, I do not know the circumstances under which they were constructed or their status with regards to planning permission. I therefore cannot draw any direct comparison between these buildings and the proposal that would weigh in its favour.

Planning permission was granted to erect a fifth floor at [address] in 2022 (Ref: 21/6685/FUL). Whilst the case officer report for this scheme concludes that the alterations would be high quality design, the Council advise in their submissions that the resultant development at this property does not enhance the locality and is not something that should be replicated. This scheme was approved under the same local plan context as the development in question (although this plan has now been replaced by the BLP), however rather than providing justification for the development in question, its presence points to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled if the character and appearance of the area is to be safeguarded. I have therefore afforded this point limited weight in favour of the appeal.

[address] is five storeys in height, the fourth and fifth floors are set in, particularly on the side which faces [address]. This serves to soften the visual impact of the increased height. [address] is four storeys in height and therefore of a similar height to the existing property. In any case, both these properties are set back from [address], fronting onto [address]. They are therefore not read in the same context as the appeal site. I have afforded references to these properties limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant draws my attention to a planning application at [address] which seeks permission to add an additional storey. However, the evidence before me outlines how this application is yet to be determined. In any case, this building is situated south of the appeal site towards [site address] town centre, where building heights increase.

The site is situated within the ‘northern zone’ in the [site address] Town Centre Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPD discusses how the building heights in this zone are generally between five and seven storeys. However, the SPD area boundary terminates at the ‘[name] building next to the appeal site. Whilst the buildings are of an increased height within this zone, the higher buildings are typically towards the central zone, reducing in height as you travel towards the appeal site and out of the town centre. The proposal would clearly disrupt the continuity of declining buildings. I have afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the development.

Numerous images to demonstrate views of the site have been submitted. The appellant outlines how these demonstrate that the increase in height would not be readily apparent due to the surrounding dense townscape. However, in my opinion, the proposed changes would be readily apparent for the reasons outlined above. In particular, in my view, the increase in height is readily discernible from viewpoint 1 given the lower building heights north of the appeal site.

The appellant refers to their Townscape and [name], outlining the Council’s lack of alternative appraisal to support their position. I acknowledge that this appraisal was undertaken by a [name] of the Landscape Institute and prepared in accordance with various industry principles. However, this appraisal involves a certain degree of judgement. Assessing a proposals effect on the character and appearance of an area is not an exact science and often there can be varying professional opinions. [name] have considered the appraisals contents, they are not binding. I have outlined my reasoning above.

Regarding the the proposed materials, due to the existing materials on the fourth floor of the property and the range of materials evident in the surrounding area, I do not consider that the proposed grey metal panelling would be out of character with the area. Whilst red brick is commonly used in the area, there is also evidence of more contemporary materials such as metal cladding. Furthermore, the scheme would maintain balance between the brickwork on lower floors and metal panelling on the upper floors. Given this, and notwithstanding my concerns relating to the increased height and bulk of the building, the proposed materials are considered acceptable.

For the reasons outlined above, the scheme would fail to accord with Policy CDH01 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the London Plan. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that positively responds to local character and design including scale, massing and height of the existing context.

Whilst Policy CDH01 of the BLP discusses optimising the capacity of site, it is also clear that development proposals should respond to the character, scale, massing and height of the existing context.

I do not find any conflict with Policy HOU03 and CDH04 of the BLP. Policy HOU03 relates to residential conversions and the re-development of larger homes whilst Policy CDH04 relates to tall buildings of at least eight storeys.

A UU has been provided at appeal stage to address the second reason for refusal. The Council have advised that, subject to the proposed amendments which have been agreed by the appellant, the Council are satisfied that this reason for refusal can be removed. The proposed amendments are however not clear and no further amended UU has been submitted. In addition, the UU is not dated. Notwithstanding this, I am dismissing the appeal for another reason. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider this matter in any further detail.

The Council have suggested that the scheme would affect the setting of locally listed buildings at [address]. This is however not referenced in the refusal reason. In any case, this matter would not be determinative due to my finding on the main issue. I have not considered this matter further.

The appeal scheme would utilise an existing site to provide additional housing in an accessible location. It would also provide additional residential uses above ground floor retail units which is broadly encouraged by planning policy. However, this would not outweigh the harm identified.

The appeal property is not a listed building and is not situated within a Conservation Area or any other specific townscape designation. It may provide an acceptable standard of accommodation and have an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. It may also meet sustainability and efficiency requirements, the national minimum space standards and have no negative impact on trees, ecology or biodiversity. The site is also situated in flood zone 1. However, these are neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.