Appeal 6000298

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, with regard to access to services and facilities, and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to ceiling heights and the provision of private outdoor amenity space.

Policy HOU03 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 [name] 2025 (LP) relates to residential conversions and the redevelopment of larger homes. The Policy sets out criteria which includes the requirement that sites proposed for residential conversions should have an existing or planned PTAL of 3-6, or be located within 800m walking distance of a station or town centre boundary. The appeal site has a PTAL rating of 2 and would therefore fail to meet this criterion.

The appeal site is close to areas that have a higher PTAL rating and there are bus stops within a moderate walking distance. However, the nearest underground and train stations are over 1km away from the appeal site and while there are some shopping facilities less than 400m away, this has not altered the PTAL rating meaning that the appeal site is considered to have poor access to public transport.

I note that the appeal site is an existing dwelling, that has been occupied for some time, despite the poor access to public transport. However, I must have regard to future occupiers who should have good access to public transport. I also note reference to the Brent Cross Town development; however, I have been provided with very limited information about this and there is no evidence that this would change the PTAL rating of the appeal site.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be located in a suitable location with regard to access to services and facilities. It would be contrary to Policy HOU03 of the LP, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development provides acceptable public transport access levels.

Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) requires a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75 per cent of the Gross Internal Area of each dwelling. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed internal floor to ceiling heights would fail to meet the above requirement across the entirety of the dwelling.

The Council have found that the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outlook, light and ventilation. [name] have no reason to conclude otherwise, these matters do not mitigate the restricted ceiling heights which would mean that future occupiers internal living space would be restricted.

I note that the proposed development is a conservation of an existing dwelling, rather than a new build, and that previous occupiers have lived with the low ceiling heights. But this does not justify future occupiers being required to live with these low ceiling heights.

Policy CDH07 of the LP sets out amenity space standards for new self-contained units. The ground floor dwelling would have access to the rear garden and meet the required standards, however, the upper floor dwelling would have no access to any private amenity space.

The upper floor dwelling is proposed to have three bedrooms which would mean that a minimum of 8 sqm of private outdoor amenity space would be required. The upper floor flat would have Juliette balconies, however, they would not provide access to any amenity space.

I am mindful that the appeal site is located close to several public open spaces and play areas which would be a benefit to future occupiers. However, on the basis of the proposed flat being three bedrooms and likely to be suitable for a family, I find that the lack of any private amenity space would be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers.

I note the upper floor flat is above the minimum internal space standards, however, this is marginal and does not outweigh the need for private amenity space. The appellant has suggested that it could be possible to provide access to the garden for both flats. However, no details have been provided to show this, and I am not satisfied that a condition would meet the tests outlined in Planning Practice Guidance in terms of being precise and enforceable.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to ceiling heights and the provision of private outdoor amenity space. It would be contrary to policies CDH01, CDH07 and HOU03 of the LP, Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 and guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] 2016 and Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments provide a good standard of amenity, meet the minimum floor to ceiling height and the outdoor amenity space requirements.

The appellant has referred to several other developments in an attempt to justify the appeal proposal. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to the properties referred to1, I have been provided with very little information about these proposals and the circumstances. However, I am mindful that these all pre-date the LP and do not justify the appeal sites poor access to public transport and lack of private amenity space for the upper floor dwelling.

The Council have found that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. [name] have no reason to conclude otherwise, these are neutral matters.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.