Appeal 6000377

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: a) character of the area; and b) living conditions of future occupiers of the host dwelling, with particular regard to the provision of internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space.

[address] is a residential street predominately comprising semi-detached dwellings. There is limited substantive evidence before me regarding the precise number of flats and Houses in [name] (HMOs) on the Crescent. That said, even taking the appellant’s own evidence, the combined total of flats and HMOs is small in comparison to the number of single, family-sized dwellings.

While the flatted properties on [address] might take access from [address] and be visible from the appeal site, due to their different orientation, scale and appearance, these dwellings are clearly distinguishable from the houses to their rear and do not make the same contribution to the street’s character. Accordingly, the character of the street remains rooted in single houses, occupied by one household.

The total number of occupants within the subdivided property would be comparable to that of a single dwelling. Even so, the occupation of the property by three separate households, each with their own schedules, routines and social patterns, would result in more frequent comings and goings, potentially at a wider range of times. It would also lead to additional movements associated with visitors, deliveries, servicing and vehicle use. In a street predominated by dwellings occupied by a single household, this increased activity would be noticeable and uncharacteristic.

Consequently, the appeal scheme would have a harmful effect on the character of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies CDH01 and HOU03 of the adopted Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) which together, and amongst other things, expect development proposals to respond sensitively to local distinctiveness and for residential conversions to have an acceptable impact upon the surrounding character of the area.

Flats 2 and 3, with GIAs of 37 sqm and 41.6 sqm respectively, would fall substantially below the minimum 61 sqm GIA required by Policy HOU03 of the BLP. Although they would very marginally exceed the minimum internal floorspace standards in the London Plan (2021) (LP) and the [name], there is clear conflict with the BLP, which was only very recently adopted, and, notwithstanding any recent changes to market demand, the local policy objective to improve living conditions across the Borough through more onerous floorspace standards.

I acknowledge that the appeal property lies within 800m of the town centre boundary and benefits from an improved Public Transport Accessibility Level rating, thereby meeting the locational criteria for residential conversions under Policy HOU03. I also recognise that Flat 1 would provide a three-bedroom dwelling that would comply with the internal floorspace standards in the BLP. Nevertheless, Flats 2 and 3 would deliver substandard internal living environments, with limitations on functionality and flexibility for future occupiers, that would be detrimental to their living conditions.

The proposal includes private outdoor amenity space for Flats 1 and 2. None is shown for Flat 3, although the appellant states that this is a drawing error and that a shared garden for Flats 2 and 3 is intended. I am satisfied that access arrangements would not preclude such a provision. However, the availability of outdoor space would not mitigate or outweigh the significant deficiencies in internal floorspace for Flats 2 and 3.

Therefore, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of future occupiers, with regard to the provision of internal floorspace. Therefore, while the proposed development would adhere to the space standards required by Policies D3 and D6 of the LP, Policy CDH07 of the BLP and the Council’s Sustainable Design and [name] (2016), it would fail to accord with the minimum internal space standards prescribed by Policy HOU03 and CDH01 of the BLP. It would also conflict with the guidance contained within the Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) which requires that the minimum residential space standards for new homes are applied to all developments in Barnet, including conversions.

The Council has raised no concerns regarding the proposed external alterations to the appeal dwelling. Given the limited extent of these elements, I see no reason to disagree.

There would be some modest economic, social and environmental benefits from the provision of two additional dwellings. Even so, given the scale of the proposed development, this would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character of the area or the living conditions of future occupiers.

Similarly, while I have taken into account the local support for the proposal, this does not, in itself, provide sufficient justification for a development that would cause harm.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.