Appeal 6000838

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site would be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to its location; • whether it would result in the sustainable conversion of a larger home; and, • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants.

There is no dispute that the appeal site lies more than 800 metres from the nearest railway station or any defined town centre boundary. It is also common ground between the parties that the site falls within a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 2 area. Although the boundary of a PTAL [address] to the site and there are bus stops within a short walking distance, no information has been submitted about linkages, or travel times. In the absence of such evidence, I am unable to assess the frequency and reliability of services or attribute material weight to these bus routes when considering the accessibility of the site.

For the reasons given, the appeal site would not be suitable for the proposed development, having regard its location. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy HOU03 of the Barnet Local Plan (BLP) which, among other things requires properties to be located with good access to public transport and local services.

Of the three flats proposed, one would be of a size and configuration capable of accommodating a family and would therefore meet the requirement at criterion B of Policy HOU03 of the BLP.

The combined floorspace available to the two additional units is insufficient to accommodate both as 61 sqm dwellings as required, where possible, by the second limb of criterion C of Policy HOU3. The 2 sqm shortfall in relation to Flat 2 is modest, and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that two compliant units could be achieved within the existing building envelope. Moreover, Flat 2 would benefit from additional space provided within the outbuilding. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to apply the flexibility inherent within the policy and I therefore find that the proposed unit sizes would accord with the overarching aims of Policy HOU3.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would result in the sustainable conversion of a larger home. Accordingly, there would be no harmful conflict with Policy HOU03 of the BLP, which, amongst other things, sets out the plan led approach to the conversion of larger homes.

Each flat would be provided with access to private outdoor space to the rear of the property. Whilst there is no dispute that the quantity of provision exceeds the minimum standard expected in the BLP, it is necessary to also assess the quality of these spaces.

For sufficient privacy to the ground floor flat to be achieved, a solid structure of head height would need to be installed in very close proximity to the only glazed opening serving the kitchen and living area. Details of boundary treatments is a matter generally capable of being addressed by conditions, but in this instance no acceptable outlook for the for the future occupiers of the flat could be achieved. While planting has the potential to improve the quality of the outlook, this would inevitably be achieved by taking space from an already narrow proposed access, impacting further and negatively on the useability of the space. The deficiency in respect of Flat 1 is not mitigated by the site’s proximity to public parks and open spaces

Flat 2 would be provided with space along two sides of the outbuilding, which would taper towards the corner of the site. The layout would not unduly impact the useability or adequacy of the space, which would be more than double the minimum area required. Paying regard to the size and location of the space identified for Flat 3, avoiding a feeling of oppression and undue influence from the access is capable of being managed through conditions to secure appropriate boundary treatment. As such, the outdoor spaces proposed for flats 2 and 3 are adequate and fit for purpose.

In its decision, the Council referred to unacceptable noise and disturbance by virtue of the main living space for Flat 2 located above the bedrooms associated with Flat 1. It is accepted by both parties that a condition requiring suitable insultation between floors would sufficiently address the issue and I find no reason to come to a different view.

Notwithstanding the acceptable elements of the scheme, the deficiencies in respect of Flat 1 lead me to conclude that the proposal would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupants. As such, the development would be contrary to the provisions in Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policies CDHO1 and CDH07 of the BLP that, amongst other things, seek a high standard of design and acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, including their outlook.

In view of my findings the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, with material considerations not indicating that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.