Appeal 6000302

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the construction of a detached garden room at [site address] , Finchley, London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/1173/RCU, and subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, drawing no LG/01.

The appeal seeks planning permission for works already carried out. Retrospective applications of this kind are provided for within the relevant legislation, and are a common feature of the planning system. I am required to judge the appeal proposal on its merits, and have done so.

The application is accompanied by various plans, including proposed floor plans and elevations. [name] am not aware of any significant discrepancies between these plans and the development as constructed, in the event that any such differences are found to exist, it is the plans that define the proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, I have based my decision on the contents of the submitted plans.

I saw on my visit that No [site address] is a semi-detached property, currently converted into two flats, with the benefit of a planning permission granted in 1969. The building which is the subject of this appeal is a flat-roofed, rectangular structure, sited adjacent to the property’s rear boundary. The building contains accommodation at ground floor and basement levels. The Council’s objections relate to the building’s effects on the area’s character, due to its floorspace, scale and massing, and also due to concerns about its possible use.

Dealing with the latter point first, at the time of my visit, I found that the ground floor of the appeal building was being used primarily as a home gym, with seating alongside, and the lower floor as an office and storage. These uses appear to me to be ones which would ordinarily be regarded as incidental to a residential use, and are therefore broadly consistent with the description of the building as a ‘garden room’ as stated in the application. In addition to these main uses, the building is also equipped with a small kitchenette area and a shower room/wc, but these facilities seem to me to be ones which could reasonably be expected to be required in connection with the building’s use as an office and gym. I appreciate the Council’s concern that the accommodation might be capable of being occupied as a separate dwelling, but as far as I can tell, that is not the use to which it is being put at present. Nor is it the use that has been applied for. Any future change in this regard would require planning permission in its own right, and could therefore be controlled through the Council’s normal planning and enforcement powers. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there is no reason why the use of the building for its stated purpose as a garden room should have any adverse effects on the surrounding area.

Turning to the Council’s other stated concerns, the above-ground part of the building is a single-storey structure, with a height of just under 2.6m, and measuring about 6.2m wide by 5.5m deep, plus a small overhang to the front. These dimensions are similar to a standard double garage, with the roof extending only slightly above the tops of the surrounding boundary fences. The predominant facing material is a light-coloured, painted render, which gives the building a pleasing finish and a neat appearance. In all these respects, the appeal building seems to me to be broadly comparable to the kind of residential outbuildings typically found in most suburban areas. Although the building spans the width of the plot, it takes up less than half of the available depth, and thus leaves the majority of the garden clear for amenity purposes. The above-ground part of the structure is visible from the surrounding properties, but with its modest proportions and relationship to the property as a whole, is neither overbearing nor over-dominant. The basement is entirely below natural ground level, and is fully concealed, apart from a small floor grill above the enclosed lightwell. As far as any views from the street are concerned, the side passageway is gated, and no part of the development is visible to the general public. In all these respects, the development seems to me to be both unexceptional and unobjectionable

I have considered carefully the Council’s view that the area’s character depends in part on the rear gardens being largely undeveloped. But in my view that is not borne out on the ground, because other outbuildings of varying sizes can be seen elsewhere in the street. In any event, as far as I am aware, the area is not a conservation area, and there is no apparent suggestion that it has any historic or architectural importance, or other special character. In these circumstances, the effect on the development pattern is not a matter of significant weight, and is therefore not a sufficient reason to prevent a development which is otherwise acceptable.

I am aware that at the time when the application was under consideration, there was also some wooden fencing which subdivided the rear garden, and this evidently played a part in the Council’s decision. I can see how this could have led the Council to perceive that the appellant’s intention was to separate the appeal building from the rest of the property. However, that fencing has since been dismantled. In the present appeal, none of the submitted plans indicates any intention either to reinstate that fencing, or to introduce any other new boundary treatments. Whilst the dismantled panels are still present on the site, I am not aware of any proposal to re-erect them in connection with the appeal building, nor do I see any purpose in speculating on that matter. I am also conscious that any new fencing which complied with the limits prescribed within the relevant legislation1 would be likely to be ‘permitted development’. In any event, I have considered the appeal on the basis that no additional fencing is proposed.

In the light of all the above, I find no basis for the Council’s concerns. To my mind the retention of the appeal building would leave the area’s character and appearance unharmed. Having regard to the planning policies cited in the Council’s refusal reason, the building achieves an acceptable standard of design, utilises the available site capacity, respects its surrounding context and preserves adequate amenity space; in these respects it accords with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan, adopted in March 2021, and with those of Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan, adopted in March 2025.

Planning conditions must meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In this case, a condition referring to the approved plans is necessary to avoid any uncertainty as to what has been permitted. The condition that I have imposed is set out on the first page of this decision.

However, the Council’s suggested condition relating to materials is not needed, as the development has already been carried out, and the materials used are acceptable. And whilst I see no reason to doubt that the appellant’s suggested condition restricting the use of the building would be enforceable, such a condition is not necessary, for the reasons already explained elsewhere in this decision.

For the above reasons, I have found that the development accords with the relevant development plan policies. No other considerations weighing against the grant of permission have been substantiated. The appeal is therefore allowed.