Appeal 6000316

The appeal is dismissed.

I have also dealt with another appeal1 on this site for a different part-retrospective outbuilding. That concurrent appeal is the subject of a separate decision, and I refer to it below where relevant.

The application form advises that works started in February 2019 but have not been completed. During my site visit, towards the rear of the appeal site (No 61) I observed an existing structure with an inverted L-shaped footprint, exposed breeze blocks and a flat roof covered with tarpaulin. It also had various openings with no windows, which did not appear to fully tie up with the proposed plans submitted for this appeal. I have therefore determined the outbuilding subject of this appeal as being mainly retrospective in nature.

Also of note is that the rear garden boundaries for several of the flats appeared to have been amended from what the plans show, and Flat 2’s bicycle store was not present within its rear garden area. The outbuilding beyond Flat 2’s garden was further away from its rear elevation than as shown on the plans.

The appeal outbuilding is subject to an enforcement notice upheld at appeal2 (“the previous enforcement notice appeal”). This requires its partial removal, when accounting for an outbuilding granted planning permission part-retrospectively by the Council in September 2024 (“the 2024 planning permission”). I must however determine the appeal on its own planning merits and having regard to the submitted proposed plans before me. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/25/3367936 2 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/C/23/3324918 Appeal Decision: 6000316

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

No 61 comprises a semi-detached dwelling over three floors, which I understand has been converted and extended to provide seven flats. There are three separate fenced garden areas beyond the rear elevations, and a larger communal garden area further beyond.

The 2024 planning permission relates to a smaller rectangular outbuilding at the same area towards the rear boundary of No 61, but set in from each side boundary. The surrounding area is mixed in character in terms of dwelling types, and I accept that the 2024 planning permission represents a real fallback. However, the overall extent of footprint subject of this appeal is significantly greater than this permitted fallback, and what was considered under the previous enforcement notice appeal, and other outbuildings in the vicinity.

The appeal outbuilding’s longer side elevation abuts the rear garden side boundary of No [address]. Additionally, this protrudes towards and at close proximity to both the existing fence boundary for Flats 1 and 2 and the fence boundary shown on the submitted plans. This noticeably lessens the spacious feel of the rear garden when compared to the 2024 planning permission and the previous enforcement notice appeal scheme. Based on what I saw during my visit, this L-shaped layout is not reflective of the surrounding built forms.

Despite containing a flat roof of similar height to the boundary fence of No 59, the appeal outbuilding is not small-scale. It notably reduces the size of the communal garden to become out of character with the area, even when accounting for the 2024 planning permission. The natural spaciousness of the rear garden area is adversely diminished. Although the appeal outbuilding is almost entirely screened from the rear garden of No 59 by the side boundary fence, it is readily visible from this neighbour’s first-floor rear elevation.

For the above reasons, the outbuilding subject of this appeal harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (adopted 2025) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (adopted 2021). Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, development proposals to respond sensitively to the distinctive local character and context in terms of design, building form, patterns of development, layout and shape. As also set out above, the outbuilding conflicts with the relevant guidance set out in the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016).

The appeal outbuilding would be used for storage by Flats 3, 4 and 5 within No 61, which have use of the communal garden area, and by Flats 1 and 2 within the extended part of No 61. I have however allowed the concurrent appeal which would provide storage space for Flat 4. I therefore see no reason why the indicated storage space for Flat 4 within the appeal outbuilding could not be used for one of the other flats, although that may be subject to a new or amended planning application. Appeal Decision: 6000316

The outbuilding that was beyond Flat 2’s garden boundary at the time of my site visit could also be used for storage for one of these flats, although I have no evidence before me as to whether this benefits from or requires planning permission. In any event, it has not been demonstrated that the appeal outbuilding is the only or least harmful way to cater for the storage needs of occupiers of the abovementioned flats.

The part of the appeal outbuilding abutting the side boundary of No 59 received favourable pre-application advice from the Council. However, the submitted evidence indicates that this was considered by the Council on its own and in a scenario where all other outbuildings would be demolished, including that approved under the 2024 planning permission. This pre-application advice therefore does not justify allowing this appeal.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. The material considerations before me do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.