Appeal 6000238

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupants of the upper floor flat, with specific regard to the provision of private outdoor space; • the effect of the proposal on the provision of car parking; and • the effect of the proposal on the character of the area.

[address] is a residential street lined with terraced dwellings. Most dwellings have front gardens or driveways which are highly visible within the street scene, providing a sense of openness. Even gardens with low front boundary treatments, such as the appeal site, are highly visible.

[name] of Policy HOU03 of the Barnet Local Plan 2025 (Local Plan) requires proposals to provide at least one family sized home with three bedrooms with access to a dedicated private garden. While the proposal does provide one family sized home, it is clear that a private garden is also a key aspect of the policy. The Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and Construction (2016) supports this by setting out the minimum standards for the amount of private outdoor space required for residential dwellings. Although the ground floor flat would have access to the existing rear garden, the family sized upper floor flat would only have access to the front garden.

Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) (Residential Design Guidance) sets out that private gardens are necessary to provide opportunities for recreation, leisure, tranquillity and interaction with the natural environment. With a low front boundary wall, and its shared use to access the front door, the lack of privacy of the front garden would limit its practical use. It would not provide a relaxing environment or a safe place for children to play. In the absence of any other garden space, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the future occupants of the upper floor flat.

I acknowledge that many flats do not have private gardens. However, I consider that in this case, the absence of a private garden would be harmful given the size of the upper floor flat, which is supported by the Local Plan and the London Plan. The appellant asserts the occupants of the upper floor flat would have access to local parks. However, access to parks is limited by the need to travel to them, and cannot be used in the same way as a private garden. This is therefore a neutral matter and does not outweigh the harm I have found to living conditions of the future occupants.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the future occupants of the upper floor flat with specific regard to the provision of garden space. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy CDH07 and point B of Policy HOU03 of the Local Plan and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) (London Plan) which collectively seek to ensure proposals provide adequate amenity space that is fit for purpose.

The Council has indicated that an additional 0.5 to 1.5 parking spaces would be required by the future occupants of the proposal, over and above the existing parking requirements. Two separate households would potentially give rise to more vehicles with more comings and goings. Although the conversion would retain the same number of bedrooms overall, it is likely that the mix of occupants would alter as a result of the conversion from one family sized dwelling into 2 separate flats, leading to an increased demand for car parking. Given that there is no provision of off-street parking, the additional spaces would need to be accommodated within the [name] (CPZ).

[name] am aware that my site visit formed a single snapshot in time and that parking levels may fluctuate throughout the day, during my site visit I observed that there were very few unoccupied parking spaces within the CPZ. I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to suggest that the additional parking spaces required as a result of the proposal could be accommodated within the CPZ without harming the existing level of parking provision. As such, I find it likely that the additional demand for parking as a result of the proposal would harm the provision of parking spaces in the area.

I am aware that the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 4 rating indicating that access to public transport links is good. Although this suggests that the occupiers of the proposed flats would not necessarily need to rely on their own private vehicle, it does not prevent an increased demand for parking, negatively impacting the provision of parking spaces within the area.

The Council requested a legal agreement and contribution to alter the Traffic Management Order (TMO) which would exempt future occupants from obtaining a parking permit within the CPZ. Given my findings above, I conclude that this would offset the harm to parking provision as a result of the proposal.

A signed legal agreement has not been provided to me. Therefore, the proposal would harm the provision of car parking in the area. As such, it would be contrary to the provisions of Policy TRC03 of the Local Plan and Policies T6 and T.6.1 of the London Plan which collectively seek to ensure that parking provision is appropriately provided. In particular, Policy TRC03 of the Local Plan sets out that where an amended CPZ is necessary, the developer may be required to make a contribution towards the alterations and monitoring of the CPZ.

[address] has a quiet residential character, where dwellings line both sides of the road. The evidence before me suggests that a number of properties on [address] have been converted to flats. This is supported by my observations during my site visit, where some of the converted properties identified by the appellant had intercoms or multiple doorbells, suggesting that there were multiple units in each property. As such, the character of [address] is not solely defined by single-family dwellings but is instead defined by a mix of single-family dwellings and flats.

The proposal would not alter the external appearance of the property. However, it would result in an intensification of use and an increase in movements to and from the property. Despite this, given the existing character of the area, it is unlikely that the proposal would result in a significant or noticeable change. The proposal could also result in an increase in the number of recycling and refuse bins to the front of the property, although their appropriate storage could be captured through a condition. In this respect, the proposal would be in keeping with the overall character of the area, in accordance with the Residential Design Guidance.

Neighbouring residents have raised concerns that the conversion could give rise to an increase in antisocial behaviour. Although the proposal would intensify the use of the property, it does not necessarily follow that this would result in antisocial behaviour. As such, I give this matter limited weight in my determination.

Accordingly, the conversion would not harm the character of the area. It would be in accordance with Policy CDH01 and point D of Policy HOU03 of the Local Plan which together seek to ensure that proposals do not have an unacceptable impact upon the surrounding character of the area.

I am aware that the proposal would provide flats which comply with the [name], with access to daylight and sunlight. I have also had regard to the contribution that the proposed conversion would make to the Councils supply of homes, and that it would be in a location with good public transport accessibility. I give these benefits moderate weight.

The proposal would provide cycle storage within the flats. While it is preferable for separate secure cycle storage to be provided, I give the provision of internal cycle storage neutral weight. The absence of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers also attracts neutral weight.

For the reasons given above I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that have been shown to carry sufficient weight to indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.