Appeal 6000905

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for an additional storey at third floor level to provide 5 no. self-contained flats on the two side wings of the detached block of flats. Associated refuse/recycling and cycle storage at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/2439/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and prior approval is granted for the construction of an additional storey comprising 3 new flats on the front elevation of the detached block of flats. Provision of cycle and refuse storage at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0456/PNV, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

For reasons that I have been unable to ascertain, the Appellant opted to divide the proposed development into two separate applications. Appeal A concerns the roof extension to the side ‘wings’ whereas Appeal B, concerns an extension to the front elevation of the building. While it is unhelpful that the development has been divided into separate applications, each subject to different statutory frameworks, I have decided to deal with both appeals together since they form one overall ‘vision’ for the building and involve the consideration of similar issues. Appeal Decision 6000905 & 6000411

A previous appeal relating to the refusal of the Council to grant approval under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO for an additional storey to the main section of the building was dismissed in September 20251. The Council accepts that the revised scheme (Appeal B), now accords with the nationally described space standard (NDSS) and has overcome one of the previous reasons for refusal.

The main issues are: a) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area ([name] & B); b) Whether the development would provide a suitable mix of accommodation (Appeal A), and c) The living conditions of future occupiers with particular regard to unit 1 (Appeal A).

The appeal site is located on the eastern side of the A1000 [site address] , between the junctions of [address] and [address]. The existing building is an unremarkable 3/4 storey, post-war, flatted development containing 31 flats. It is set-back generously from [site address] behind a service road and an area of frontage landscaping. A row of lock up garages and an amenity area are located to the rear of the site accessed from [address].

The appeal site occupies a transitional location in the local townscape where the residential character to the north gives way to a higher density, mixed-use residential/commercial character comprising Whetstone Town Centre to the south. There are a wide range of building styles present. Most buildings in the locality are between 2-4 storeys in height although some taller buildings, up to 12 storeys, are visible in longer distance views to the south. There are no listed buildings or conservation areas close to the site and as I saw when I visited the area, one would be hard pushed to describe the surrounding townscape as particularly notable or sensitive in architectural or streetscape terms.

Both appeals seek permission for the construction of one additional storey on the wings and main section of the appeal building. The extensions would be finished in dark grey metal ‘standing seam’ cladding. Section 3.4 of the Design and [name] contains visualisations of the extensions. These along with the submitted plans show that the additional storey would be recessed from the edges of the building behind parapet walls in a manner that would help to mitigate its visual impact. I cannot therefore accept that the extension would ‘lack meaningful setback’ as asserted in the [name].

The proportions of the proposed development would be within the range of that normally associated with upward extensions in urban areas. The Appellant has highlighted some examples of similar developments elsewhere in the borough to demonstrate that point. Accordingly, I am satisfied that either individually or 1 [name]: 6000345 Appeal Decision 6000905 & 6000411 collectively the proposed extensions would be subordinate to the host building and would not be overbearing. I also note that the extension in Appeal B would be well screened from [site address] by the mature tree located on the site frontage.

I accept that the extension would have a ‘box-like’ appearance. However, that criticism could be levelled at the vast majority of urban roof extensions. In this case, the host building already has what could be described as a boxy appearance. Given the generous size of the appeal site, there would be ample separation between the appeal building and its immediate neighbours such that the extension would not appear overbearing or dominating. The windows, which would largely replicate the pattern of fenestration on the lower floors, would help to add articulation.

Given the varied and robust character of the surrounding area which includes buildings of similar scale and the set-back and design of the extensions, I am satisfied they would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the development accords with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (BLP). It would also accord with paragraph 125e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which “supports opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes... where the development would be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene”.

Even if I had agreed with the assessment in the [name], this would not necessarily have led to me dismissing the appeal. NPPF paragraph 125c), which is not mentioned by the Council in its submissions, states: “[s]ubstantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused” (my emphasis). In setting the bar at ‘substantial’ the government clearly recognises that some harm maybe acceptable if the country’s housing needs are going to be met. The Council has not alleged ‘substantial’ harm for either development. Therefore, even on its own case, the appeal scheme accords with NPPF paragraph 125c). This is a significant material consideration capable of outweighing conflict with [name] CDH01 and CDH05.

In respect of Appeal B, the Council considered that the development would meet all the relevant conditions contained in paragraph A.2 of the GPDO save for (e) the external appearance of the building. Here it contends the extension would be unacceptable due to its dominance and appearance. [name] have found that the development would comply with [name] CDH01 and CDH05, it follows that the development meets the requirements of [name].2 of the GPDO.

Policy H10 of the London Plan 2021 and HOU02 of the BLP seek the provision a range of house sixes to meet local needs. [name] there is a particular need for family housing. However, it is clear from the inclusion of words such as ‘should’, ‘expected’ and ‘generally’ that the requirements of policies H10 and HOU02 are not absolute and need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, the latter operates as a permissive policy and there is no suggestion that the failure to provide family sized housing would ordinarily justify the refusal of planning permission. In that regard I note that Policy H10 expressly states that “one-bedroom units play a very important role in meeting housing need”. Appeal Decision 6000905 & 6000411

In my view, the provision of the Council’s preferred housing mix in any scheme would be an additional benefit weighing in favour of a grant of planning permission. However, it cannot be right, in the context of a national housing crisis, that the provision of new housing (whatever the mix) should be considered a planning harm, which is effectively the Council’s position here. Only in circumstances where the Council is able to demonstrate that there was no demand for the type of housing proposed could it sensibly argue that the provision of new housing would be a disbenefit. The Council has made no such argument in this case.

The Appellant has highlighted the flexibility within Policies H10 and HOU02 and argues that the site-specific context of the current schemes i.e. an additional storey to an existing block of flats, rather than a bigger housing allocation, makes family housing less appropriate. That position does not strike me as unreasonable, particularly in light of the obvious daylight, outlook and access constraints posed by the nature and location of the development. While the Council states that the development “could feasibly deliver a mix of unit sizes to include family units”, no evidence has been adduced to support that position. Nor has any evidence been submitted to demonstrate a lack of demand for one-bed flats2. Accordingly, I am satisfied there would be no conflict with Policies H10 and HOU02.

BLP Policy CDH01 expects development to comply with the requirements set out in Tables 8 and 9 (derived from the NDSS) with regards to the internal layout and design of new homes. The Council considers that unit 1 at 42.1m2 fails to meet the required minimum space standard for a 1-bedroom, 2-person unit (50m2) and would result in a substandard form of accommodation for future occupiers. The crux of the disagreement is whether unit 1 is likely to be occupied by a single person or two.

I can see nothing obvious about the size and open-plan design of unit 1 that would preclude occupation by a single person. I note that unit 1 is slightly bigger than the two studio flats proposed in Appeal B which the Council accepts would meet the requirements of the NDSS for studio flats (39m2). While the Council refers to the bedroom of unit 1 being 12m2, the layout plan indicates the bedroom would form part of the kitchen/living area and would not be a separate room.

Even if I were to accept the Council’s case, internal space standards should be applied with a degree of flexibility and in a manner that recognises their overall aims and objectives. In this case, unit 1 would provide a good level of accommodation for future occupiers such that a modest shortfall identified by the Council would not be sufficient, in itself, to withhold planning permission if the scheme were otherwise acceptable. Any perceived shortfall must also be viewed in the context that the other flats proposed in appeals A and B, meet and, in some cases, comfortably exceed, the minimum standards contained in the NDSS.

For the above reasons, I do not consider that the size of unit 1 would unacceptably harm the living conditions of future occupiers. It would not therefore conflict with BLP Policy CDH01 insofar as it seeks a good level of amenity. I do not therefore consider it necessary to condition the layout plan submitted with Appeal A.3

The Planning Practice Guidance states that Inspectors may use their powers to make an award of costs where they have found unreasonable behaviour, including in cases where no application has been made by another party. I have given serious thought to exercising these powers in this instance given the failure of the Council to have regard to key government policy, specifically NPPF paragraph 125c) and its paradoxical approach to housing mix. That is despite the former being brought to the Council’s attention on at least two occasions in the last 12 months4. Nevertheless, I have exercised my discretion not to initiate an application for costs on this particular occasion. The Council should however take note of these comments to avoid any prospect of such an award being made in the future.

For Appeal A, I have imposed a time limit condition. For both appeals, a plans condition is necessary to provide certainty. Materials conditions are necessary to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Cycle parking is necessary to ensure future residents have genuine access to sustainable forms of travel. I have amended the wording suggested by the Council to ensure secure and covered parking (i.e. lockers, sheds or within a secure compound) rather than the arrangements shown on the layout plans.

A Construction Management Plan is reasonably necessary to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. Given the modest scale of the development, I have simplified the requirements sought by the Council. For Appeal A, I have imposed a water efficiency condition to ensure compliance with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan. There is no evidence before me to indicate that future residents would be subject to an unacceptable level of traffic noise, I have therefore omitted the suggested noise mitigation condition. The bin storage arrangements for each development are shown on the proposed site plans and there is no suggestion these are unacceptable. Accordingly, I have omitted these conditions.

Compliance or otherwise with the 2010 Building Regulations is covered under a separate statutory regime. I can find no reference in Policy ECC02 or Tables 15 and 16 regarding the need for carbon dioxide emission reduction measures. Therefore, on the information before me I cannot be sure this condition meets the tests for planning conditions. Considering the location of the proposed flats and the fact that access would be via several flights of stairs, I do not consider it necessary or reasonable to require compliance with Requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ of the Building Regulations, notwithstanding the requirements of Policies HOU03 and D7.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

This development shall begin within three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and reports: 1249-(00)-100 Rev 01, 1249-(00)-102 Rev 01, 1249-(17)-100 Rev 01, 1249-(17)-101 Rev 01, 1249-(16)-104 Rev 01, 1249- (16)-105 Rev 01, 1249-(18)-100 Rev 01 and the Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing Assessment, dated November 2024.

No development other than demolition works shall take place until details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the proposed extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall thereafter be retained.

No development or site works shall take place on site until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: i. Methods to be used and the measures to be undertaken to control the emission of dust, noise and vibration arising from construction works; ii. details of a community liaison contact for the duration of all works associated with the development, and iii. Details of construction hours.

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to first occupation secure and covered cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved parking spaces shall thereafter be retained.

Prior to the first occupation of the new dwellinghouse(s) (Use Class C3) hereby approved they shall all have been constructed to have 100% of the water supplied to them by the mains water infrastructure provided through a water meter or water meters and each new dwelling shall be constructed to include water saving and efficiency measures that comply with Regulation 36(2)(b) of [name] 2 of the Building Regulations to ensure that a maximum of 105 litres of water is consumed per person per day with a fittings based approach should be used to determine the water consumption of the proposed development. The development shall be maintained as such in perpetuity thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and reports: 1249-(00)-100 Rev P1, 1249-(00)-102 Rev P1, 1249-(16)-101 Rev P1, 1249-(16)-102 Rev P1, 1249-(16)-103 Rev P1, 1249- (16)-104 Rev P1, 1249-(16)-105 Rev P1, 1249-(16)-106 Rev P1, 1249-(17)-100 Rev P2, 1249-(17)-101 Rev P2, 1249-(18)-100 Rev P2 and the Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing Assessment (19 February 2025). Appeal Decision 6000905 & 6000411

No development other than demolition works shall take place until details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall thereafter be retained.

No development or site works shall take place on site until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: iv. Methods to be used and the measures to be undertaken to control the emission of dust, noise and vibration arising from construction works; v. details of a community liaison contact for the duration of all works associated with the development, and vi. Details of construction hours The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the measures detailed within the CMP.

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to first occupation secure and covered cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved parking spaces shall thereafter be retained.