Appeal 6000301

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is a rectangular parcel of land, which is mostly overgrown with vegetation. The wider area is residential with properties being large, typically occupy sizable plots and have generous gaps between each dwelling. The result is that the area has an open and spacious character and appearance.

The small size of the plot, combined with the small dwelling proposed would mean that it would appear cramped in the context of the large properties and spacious plots within the wider area. I acknowledge the low height and small scale of the dwelling, which does restrict some visibility, however, the glimpsed views of the dwelling would give the appearance that built form has been squeezed into a small plot and therefore highlight the cramped nature of the proposal which would stand out within the context of the wider area.

I note that planning permission has been previously granted for a detached garage on the appeal site, which would have occupied a similar footprint to the proposed dwelling. However, a garage would have been seen as an incidental feature within the street scene and would not be unusual in the context of the large dwellings and plot sizes, the frontage would also be open, clearly indicating its use. The dwelling would appear differently within the street scene through the front garden and single gate to access the dwelling, thereby highlighting its cramped appearance.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 [name] 2025 and guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness and respond sensitively to the distinctive local character and design.

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 rear of 74-76 Lyonsdown Road1, this related to a dwelling which is materially different design to the proposal before me. The site also does not have the same spacious character and appearance of the appeal site before me through a dense belt of established mature planting that separates the site from the nearest property.

In respect of No. [address], No. [address] and [name] 1 And [address], these all relate to different designed dwellings when compared to the appeal scheme before me. While all of these areas are residential, they differ in character and appearance when compared to the appeal site which is spacious and open which results in the small dwelling and plot size appearing cramped.

The Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, however, the proposed dwelling would still contribute to housing in the area which would attract moderate weight in favour of the appeal. However, this would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.