Appeal 6001079

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 main issues are:  The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the streetscape, and the surrounding area; and  The effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two‐storey semi‐detached dwelling at No. [site address] , which has been subdivided to form two flats (Nos. 2 and 2A). The building occupies a triangular‐shaped plot, the constraints of which have influenced its original design, including the incorporation of an angled corner. The site also includes a flat‐roofed double garage, located close to the host dwelling, which forms the subject of this appeal. The side boundary of the plot backs onto the rear gardens of properties on [address] and follows an irregular, angled alignment, tapering to a point from the front to the rear of the site.

The surrounding area is characterised by similar, well‐spaced semi‐detached dwellings set back a consistent distance from the highway, creating a strong and coherent building line and a pleasant pattern of development. The presence of footways on both sides of the street, street trees, generous front gardens, together with low boundary treatments such as walls and hedges, contributes to an open and spacious streetscape.

Properties within the area are broadly consistent in terms of shape, size, scale, and bulk, establishing a regular rhythm of development. Roof forms are predominantly hipped, although some hip‐to‐gable alterations are evident, and external elevations are largely finished in painted render. Fenestration typically follows a regular and repeated pattern. Collectively, these characteristics make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would demolish the existing garage and construct a part two-storey part single storey dwelling, breaching the consistent front building line. Given the area is characterised by similar, well‐spaced semi‐detached dwellings set back a consistent distance from the highway, creating a strong and coherent building line, this breach would harmfully and starkly contrast with the pleasant pattern of development.

The ground floor flank wall would be on the boundary with the properties on [address], on one side, above the existing fence height. On the other side the flank wall would be a path width away from Nos 2 and 2A (the host dwelling). The proposed dwelling would taper and decrease in width to the rear.

The appeal site presents as relatively generous when viewed from the street; however, this impression is misleading due to the pronounced angle of the plot. Although the proposal would use the land between the host dwelling and the angled boundary, replacing an existing outbuilding, it would nevertheless appear tightly constrained within the irregularly shaped plot. Its close physical relationship with the host property, combined with its position adjacent to the shared boundary with properties on [address], would be at odds with the established pattern of development. Furthermore, the proposal would diminish the existing gap, materially reducing the existing sense of spaciousness of this part of the street. Consequently, the scheme would read as a cramped form of infill that would sit uncomfortably within its context, detracting from the distinctive and pleasant character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant maintains that infill development of this nature is commonplace within London and Barnet, and that such schemes are supported by the London Plan. The appellant has drawn my attention to examples where the spacing between an infill dwelling and neighbouring buildings is less generous than is characteristic of the locality. However, I do not have full details of the circumstances that led to those proposals being accepted, nor do I know if they have planning permission at all. Therefore, I cannot be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal, including in respect of scale, location, use and development plan policy. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

Whilst the width of the front elevation would only appear slightly less than the typical width of a semi-detached property on [address], the overall form would contrast significantly with its immediate context. The first floor would appear as a box on top of a larger box, an element that would be magnified by the proposed flat roofs. Whilst an attempt has been made to be subservient to the host dwelling, having an overall lower height, its design, in conjunction with its dominant street presence would be in stark contrast with its surrounding which harm the character and appearance of the area.

Taken together, the cramped form of development and the inconsistent form would draw attention away from the pleasant consistency of the local design and harmfully contrast with the local character and appearance of the host dwelling, the streetscape, and the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and policies CDH01 and CDH07 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality design that responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with the guidance within the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Residential Design Guidance (2016) and the [name] and [name] (2016), insofar as they also seek high quality design that respect the distinctiveness of the local character.

Whilst the proposal would be located the same distance from the host dwelling as the existing single storey garage, it would be two-storeys. The proposed flank wall closest to the host dwelling would be blank. However, the entrance door to No. 2A would be directly adjacent as would a flank window for No. 2. The submitted plans do not show the internal layout of either flat. The appellant maintains these openings do not serve habitable rooms and the Council do not dispute this. Based on the evidence before me the appeal scheme would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Nos. 2 and [address] in regard to outlook.

The proposed dwelling would extend up to the boundary separating the side of the appeal site from the rear boundaries of properties on [address]. The single storey element would be above the existing fence and be directly on the boundary. Owing to variations in ground levels, the two‐storey element would sit lower at the boundary than might ordinarily be expected. Nonetheless, it would rise substantially above the height of the existing boundary fencing.

I acknowledge that only the corner of the two storey element would be on the shared boundary with No [address] (No 482). The rectangular shaped first floor element of the proposal would be set at an angle to No 482 and No [address] (No 484) and would retreat from each boundary somewhat, due to the angled construction of the first-floor element in comparison to the ground floor and to the boundary. Nonetheless, it would come directly up to the shared boundary of No 482 and its height, mass and scale would be visible from the gardens of both Nos 482 and 484.

The degree of separation between the appeal proposal and Nos 482 and 484 would be sufficient to mitigate the visual impact arising from the proposal. The development would not appear overbearing and would not materially harm the outlook experienced by the occupants of Nos 482 and 484, when viewed from habitable windows. Furthermore, the proposal would not impinge on any outside space close to the houses. Whilst there would be some element of overbearing when viewed at the end of the garden this is not of sufficient harm to be significant.

Consequently, the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy CDH01 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality design that delivers appropriate outlook for neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, the proposal would not conflict with the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) and the [name] and [name] (2016), insofar as they seek well designed development that does not adversely affect outlook.

The proposal is described as being a self-build/custom-build unit, which would add to housing supply in the area. The provision of this type of housing is supported by paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework). However, this has not been secured by a legal mechanism and as such attracts limited weight in favour of the proposal.

Furthermore, the proposal would contribute one unit of one bedroom accommodation to the local housing supply. However, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate a need for this particular type of housing in the area and I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

The proposal would provide a small economic benefit in terms of jobs in construction and patronage of local services by future occupiers. However, given the limited nature of the proposal, any benefit would be negligible, and I afford it little weight.

I acknowledge that the proposal would be reduced in mass and scale of previous proposals whilst still maintaining space standards; that the use of painted render would conform with the external materials of other properties in the area; that the proposal would use a similar front boundary treatment; and that the green roofs, solar hot water, heat recovery system and permeable paving would meet sustainability objectives and drainage requirements. However, these elements are neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole, 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.