Appeal 6000630

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: 6000630

The appeal is dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site. They differ in the size and arrangement of respective amenity spaces and on-site parking provision. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

The main issues in both appeals are the effect of the proposals on: • The character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area, • The living conditions of future occupiers, and Appeal Decisions 6000622 and 6000630 • Highway function and safety.

The appeal site is currently a brick built mid-20th century semi-detached two storey gable ended house of plain design, with a wraparound garden with tall hedges and fences on the boundaries. This is located at the corner of [address] and [address] and sits at the end of a run of similar semi-detached and terraced houses on this side of the street. On the opposite side of the street is a three storey flatted development. However, the local area is made up of a mixture of three storey buildings, two storey houses and single storey bungalows, including the neighbouring bungalow at [address] (No.127). These differ in age, design and scale, resulting in a varied streetscape with limited wider townscape cohesion.

To the side of the existing dwelling there is a small flat roofed detached storage/ garage like structure that seems to be the same age as the dwelling. This structure is evidently too narrow for the parking of even a very small car and appears to be only of a size large enough for a narrower vehicle such as a motorcycle or motorcycle combination etc. To the front of this storage/garage structure is an off street parking space large enough to provide parking for a single car.

The proposal in both appeals is for a single storey flat roofed extension to the rear of the existing dwelling that would be to the full length of its rear elevation. The subdivision of the existing plot to create an additional single storey one bedroom dwelling on the appeal site is also proposed in both appeals. This would have a hipped roof form over the main part that would be attached to the flank of the existing dwelling. This would align with the front elevation of the existing dwelling and would extend rearward with a flat roofed element that aligns with the rear wall of the proposed flat roofed extension to the existing dwelling. The proposed new dwelling will require the demolition of the existing detached garage structure.

Planning permission1 was previously given for a side and rear extension of the appeal dwelling that, at the time of my site visit, remained unimplemented. The design of the proposal for a rear extension and new single storey dwelling in both appeals is of very much the same footprint, massing and design as this previously approved extension to the existing dwelling. Appeal A

As noted, the proposal for an extension to the existing dwelling and creation of a new single storey dwelling would follow the design, form and scale of a recently approved single storey extension to the existing dwelling. The creation of the new dwelling, rather than a side extension, would result in a short terrace of three residential properties, albeit that the additional proposed dwelling would not follow the form of the existing semi-detached pair to which it would be attached.

However, the proposed single storey dwelling would reflect the height and scale of the neighbouring bungalow at No.27 and would not be of a scale or prominence that would result in disruption to the character and appearance of the existing 1 Planning Ref: 24/2512/HSE Appeal Decisions 6000622 and 6000630 dwelling and its semi-detached pair, or to the local streetscene and character and appearance of the local area. Rather, it would reflect the existing appearance and character of the local area that is defined by residential buildings that vary considerably in age, design and scale and with little wider cohesion in the local townscape.

As such, I do not find that the proposal would result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or that of the local area.

The appeal proposal would result in the subdivision of the existing plot. The existing garden would be subdivided to provide front and rear gardens to the existing dwelling and a wraparound garden to the proposed dwelling. The main part of the garden to the proposed dwelling would be to its side. Given the corner location of the appeal plot, this would result in this having a boundary with the street as well as to the neighbouring single storey dwelling at No.127. This street frontage to the garden would result in overlooking of this proposed garden, reducing the privacy of users

Whilst the garden for the proposed new dwelling would not be fully enclosed by neighbouring gardens and therefore screened from the street, this is not unusual for dwellings located on corner plots and also reflects the existing garden arrangement to the existing dwelling. With the existing garden arrangement, the privacy of its users is protected from intrusive overlooking by the existing tall hedge along the street frontage.

I find that the without having a tall boundary treatment to screen the garden to the proposed dwelling, the degree of overlooking from the street would be intrusive and would result in a loss of privacy that would be detrimental to its occupiers. However, the installation of a tall boundary treatment that would screen the garden from such intrusive overlooking could be made the subject of a suitably worded condition, which would require the submission of details of such a boundary treatment to the planning authority for their approval and its installation prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling.

With the addition of such a condition to a planning permission, the appeal proposal would not therefore result in any significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

Given my findings with regard to the inability of the existing storage/garage on the appeal site to accommodate even a small car, I conclude that there is only a single off street parking space currently provided on the appeal site. As the proposed new dwelling would be positioned further forward than the existing storage/garage structure the existing off-street parking area would be foreshortened. The appeal proposal would not, therefore, provide sufficient space to provide an off street parking space that would meet the size requirements. As such, the proposal as a whole does not propose a replacement of off street parking for the existing dwelling on the appeal site or an additional single off street parking space for the proposed new dwelling. Appeal Decisions 6000622 and 6000630

From my site visit, it was evident that on street parking is in high demand in the local area. The appellant has not submitted any further information with their appeal statement with regard to the effect of additional on street parking for vehicles associated with the existing and proposed dwellings on the appeal site. Without this information I am not in a position to conclude that the proposal would not therefore represent a risk to the proper functioning of the local highway and its safe operation for all users, particularly those in the vulnerable cycling and pedestrian groups. Without this I must conclude that the proposal represents a risk to that function and safety.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the function and safe operation of the highway. This would be contrary to Policy TRC03 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-236 (2025) (the Local Plan) and Policies T6 and T6.1 of The London Plan (2021) (the London Plan). Collectively these seek, amongst other matters, developments that provide for off-street parking provision that meets the stated and required standards set out with these policies and that allow existing residents to maintain safe and efficient use of their streets.

The proposal would provide for a single small new dwelling. This is a limited benefit within the context of the need for overall housing need and provision in the Council area. As the absence of harm found with regard to the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area and the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed new dwelling are neutral factors in my considerations, I find that the harm to highway function and safety that I have identified outweighs this benefit.

Appeal B

The design, form and scale of the proposed new dwelling and extension to the existing dwelling is exactly the same as that of the proposal in Appeal A. For the same reasons I conclude that the proposal in this appeal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or that of the local area.

In attempting to address the Council’s reasons for refusal of the application that forms the basis of Appeal A, the appeal proposal in this instance includes a tall fence that would be set in from the street frontage and would screen it from intrusive overlooking from the street. This would, however, have the effect of reducing the size of the area of the garden that would be screened from overlooking from the street.

Whilst this may not be the optimal way to achieve the screening of the garden space from intrusive overlooking and protecting against a loss of privacy for its users, as addressed in my conclusion in Appeal A, that a boundary screening condition could be applied to a planning permission to protect privacy and living conditions of occupiers, it would achieve a screened garden space of the required size for a dwelling of the type proposed. As such, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of occupiers of the proposed new dwelling. Appeal Decisions 6000622 and 6000630

In an attempt to address the Council’s reasons for refusal of the application that forms the basis of Appeal A, the appeal proposal in this instance includes a single off-street parking space associated with the proposed new dwelling on the appeal site. The proposal does not however include any off street parking provision to replace the parking space that would be lost to the existing dwelling.

As noted above, I found on my site visit that the on street parking is in high demand in the local area. Notwithstanding that the appeal proposal provides a single off street parking space associated with the proposed new dwelling; the appellant has not submitted any further information with their appeal statement with regard to the effect of an additional on street parking space being required for a single vehicle associated with the existing dwelling on the appeal site. Without this information I am not in a position to conclude that the proposal would not represent a risk to the proper functioning of the local highway and its safe operation for all users, particularly those in the vulnerable cycling and pedestrian groups. Without this I must conclude that the proposal represents a risk to that function and safety.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the function and safe operation of the highway. This would be contrary to Policy TRC03 of Local Plan and Policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan. Collectively these seek, amongst other matters, developments that provide for off-street parking provision that meets the stated and required standards set out with these policies and that allow existing residents to maintain safe and efficient use of their streets.

The proposal would provide for a single small new dwelling, which would be a limited benefit within the context of the need for overall housing need and provision in the Council area. As the absence of harm found with regard to the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area and the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed new dwelling are neutral factors in my considerations, I find that the harm to highway function and safety that I have identified outweighs this benefit.

The appeals are dismissed.