Appeal 6000763

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 appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • Whether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • The effect of the proposed development on protected trees; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. • If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.

[site address] is a two-storey building comprised of five flats. It is situated on a triangular shaped plot at the end of a linear group of development on [site address] . There is an elderly persons care home to the south, the road frontage to the east and undeveloped land to the north with trees that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). There is also a footpath running along this northern boundary and the plot reduces in width to the rear.

The appeal building is a single storey, flat roofed double garage situated within the grounds of, and to the rear of, [site address] . It is accessed by a gravelled driveway to the side of [site address] and the TPO trees are on the boundary here on third party land. The trees form part of the urban edge and the beginning of the undeveloped land beyond. For this reason, and when combined with their overall scale, stature, and apparent good health, they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. The surrounding area contains a number of buildings of various designs, uses, and sizes. The area is located within the Green Belt.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Framework outlines that development should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. One of the exceptions cited is 154 c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the ‘original building’. The term ‘original building’ is defined in the glossary of the Framework as ‘a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally’.

The Framework does not define what constitutes a ‘disproportionate’ addition. Policy ECC06 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (the Local Plan) is consistent with the Green Belt aims of the Framework in terms of setting out that any proposals for development in the Green Belt will be considered in accordance with the Framework. However, it does not set out any policy regarding what is inappropriate. Likewise, the London Plan 2021 Policy G2 seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development but does not define it.

The Council have concluded that the increase in size in proportion to the floor space does not exceed the allowable limit set out in paragraph 14.48 of the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (the SPD). I have no reason to disagree.

The Council have assessed that the development is inappropriate development due to the proposed larger scale, bulk, and height than the existing garage. These are matters of character and appearance and are not supported by development plan policy in regard to assessing inappropriate development in the Green Belt, or the Framework where exception 154 c) applies.

For these reasons, the proposal to extend and convert a detached garage would meet the exception in paragraph 154 c), the extension or alteration of a building, and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Given this finding, I do not need to consider openness any further.

Accordingly, the proposal to extend and convert the garage would comply with the Framework, Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021, Policies ECC05 and ECC06 of the Local Plan and the SPD insofar as they seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

An arboricultural impacts assessment was undertaken on September 8, 2025, and submitted as part of this appeal. That report sets out that it was undertaken to assist a planning application for a new single storey dwelling on the footprint of an existing brick garage to the rear of [site address] , and that the existing garage will be demolished. The description of development for this appeal is the conversion and extension of a detached garage to create a dwelling. The demolition of the existing building and construction of a new dwelling would be a materially different development to the one that the submitted report considers.

There are large mature trees close to the proposal which are subject to a TPO and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. The appeal statement sets out that no trees will be removed with only minor crown lifting of two trees; that RPAs are unaffected beyond the footprint of the existing garage; and that any risks can be managed by a suitably worded condition. However, the arboricultural impacts assessment considers a different proposal. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that the trees will not be adversely affected by the subject appeal proposal, and due to the conflict, I would be unable to require that the development be carried out in accordance with the submitted

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies CDH01 and ECC07 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality design that responds positively to the distinctive local character, in regard to trees, and protect existing site ecology.

The Council have concerns that the increase in height of the roof together with the extension to the building would by reason of its scale, bulk design and siting along the rear boundary would be harmful. Whilst the hipped roof would be 2.4m higher than the existing flat roof, it would blend into the design cues of the local area, matching the hipped roof of [site address] and the varied roofscape of [site address] in general. As such it would improve the existing situation.

The Council have concerns that the siting of the dwelling to the rear of [site address] would appear at odds from the established pattern of development and would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area. The front building line along [site address] is consistent until it arrives at the elderly care home adjacent to the appeal site, where it clearly deviates, signalling the end of that consistent building line.

The care home has a substantial amount of development to the rear which fills the plot. Whilst it is clear that there is a small group of properties with a consistent front building line and only small outbuildings to the rear, these are sandwiched between the adjacent elderly persons care home and a number of properties which clearly have developments to the rear accessed from [address]. Given the matters above and the existing location of the garage, which is not visible from the road, I conclude that the location of the proposal would be acceptable at this location at this site.

Although it was not a reason for refusal, the Council raised concerns regarding the potential of over intensification of the site. However, it is clear that the garage already exists and therefore there would be only a moderate increase in size due to the extension. Its use as a building materials store was evident on my site visit and given the intense use of the elderly care home site adjacent, I find no harm in this regard.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area in terms of its use, design, and location. It would comply with policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality design that respects the distinctive character of the local area. Furthermore, the proposal would comply with the Framework insofar as it also seeks high quality design that respects local design character. The proposal would comply with the SPD insofar as it seeks high-quality design that is informed by the local pattern of development.

I have found that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there is therefore no need for very special circumstances to be demonstrated. It would also comply with character and appearance policies in terms of design and positioning.

The development would result in the addition of a one-bedroom dwelling, would optimise the use of land, contribute to housing supply and particularly the under supplied small unit provision. Whilst the provision of an additional dwelling weighs moderately in favour of the development, it would not, however, outweigh the harm I have found to the protected trees given the failure to provide certainty in this regard in relation to the specific development proposed.

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations, including the Framework, which outweigh this conflict.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.