Appeal 6000673

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and local area, and the effects on the implementation of landscaping.

The appeal site includes a detached dwelling which sits in a generous plot fronting [address]. The north side of the road is generally comprised of detached dwellings of a similar scale which are aligned to form a consistent building line up to [address]. Buildings on both sides of the road are generally set back behind gardens, grass verges and footpaths which along with trees lining the street create a spacious and verdant character in the local area.

The proposal seeks to erect a car port towards the front boundary of the site. This would be formed of a flat, sedum covered roof and measure some 7.75 metres (m) wide by 6m depth with an overall height of 2.3m. The structure would be open to all sides, albeit with a dwarf wall to the rear and sides and supported by timber posts.

My attention is drawn to the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) (adopted October 2016) which advises with regards to car ports to make sure it is well designed as it can often detract from the design of the property and the whole of the street. It is important that the materials used are sympathetic to the original house.

The car port would be open to 3 sides giving it a permeable appearance. Moreover, I understand that it has been reduced in height by 0.2m from a previously refused application1 for the same structure. However, while the materials would largely be sympathetic to the host building, it would occupy a significant area given its dimensions. This would reduce the space to the front of the dwelling and impose itself on the front boundary of the site. Moreover, while it would largely be screened from public view by the front boundary wall, a large structure to the front of the site would be incongruous in the local area and reduce the pleasant spacious character of the surroundings to a harmful degree.

I am presented with examples of other garages and car ports in the wider area. These include at No’s 17, 37, 39, 75, 108, 202, and [address] and No.[address]. While the photos are helpful, it is unclear as to the circumstances of their erection, while they are also evidently some distance from the appeal site. I have taken the immediate context of the street scene into consideration and to my mind, the proposal would be incongruous in that regard.

To conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the local area. This would be contrary to policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 – 2036 (LP) (adopted March 2025) and D3 of the London Plan (adopted March 2021). These seek to ensure that extensions maintain or improve the appearance of the locality or street scene, among other things. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance in the SPD.

A second reason for refusal concerned the impacts of the proposal on tree planting which was evidently secured by condition attached to a previous grant of planning permission2. The submitted plan3 shows a [name] and a Tulip tree along the planter lining the northeast boundary of the site to the front of the property. These are evidently already planted.

The appellant advises that the condition in question has not yet been discharged. I see no reason to dispute this. I note the concerns of the Council that they may not grow given the proximity of the dwelling and narrow planting strip. However, were this to occur, appropriate enforcement action should be taken. With regards to the proposal before me, I see no reason to doubt that the trees would not be affected by the car port given the separation between the nearest tree and the proposal.

As such, the proposal would accord with policies CDH01 of the LP and G5 and G7 of London Plan. These seek, among other things, to ensure that the planting of additional trees should generally be included in new developments.

Policy ECC04 of the LP was also cited on the decision notice and I have been provided with a copy of this policy in the Council’s submissions. However, this seeks to encourage sustainable waste management by seeking to utilise additional waste capacity at [name] and its relevance to the proposal is unclear. 1 24/2054/HSE 2 23/4802/FUL 3 [name]: 2025-Barnet-LAND-CAR-01

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material planning considerations which would alter this finding. The appeal is therefore dismissed.