Appeal 6001441

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of the house of two flats into 4 self-contained flats at [site address] , Cricklewood, Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3526/RCU, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: [postcode] .001, [postcode] .002, [postcode] .003, [name]/[name] [site address] , 24/3526/RCU, Planning Statement, [postcode] .005 Rev 1, [postcode] .007, [postcode] .008, [postcode] .011 Rev 3 and [postcode] .012.

The layout of the residential units as indicated on the hereby approved plans shall be permanently retained as such.

Notwithstanding the approved plans, within 3 months from the date of this decision, details of enclosures and screened facilities for the storage of recycling containers and wheeled refuse bins or other refuse storage containers where applicable, together with a satisfactory point of collection shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Within 3 months of the approval of any details under this condition, the development shall be implemented in full accordance and shall be permanently retained and maintained as such thereafter.

Within 6 months from the date of this decision, cycle parking spaces and cycle storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently retained and maintained as such thereafter.

Notwithstanding the approved plans, a minimum of 1no parking space shall be provided in conjunction with the existing crossover and the space and corresponding access to the parking area from the public highway shall be permanently retained and maintained as such thereafter. The parking spaces shall be used only as agreed and not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the approved development.

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.

An application for costs was made by 1st construction(uk)Ltd against the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. This application will be the subject of a separate

The appellant has submitted amended plans as part of the appeal which include the removal of a section of internal walling separating the living and kitchen area to ‘flat B’. As part of the written representation process both the Council and third parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the amended plans as part of the appeal process. Therefore, having regard to the Wheatcroft principles and other subsequent case law, I am satisfied that the amended plan can be considered as part of the appeal process without injustice occurring to other parties.

I observed on my site visit that works to subdivide the appeal building had been conducted. For the avoidance of doubt, I have made this recommendation based on the proposed plans submitted with the appeal.

The main issue is whether the proposal provides acceptable living conditions for the occupants at the appeal site with specific regard to light.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached property situated on [address], a street of mainly other residential dwellings. The appeal site’s arrangement comprises of four flats two to the first floor and two to the ground floor. Both flats to the ground floor are served by glazed doors which provide access to their respective private rear gardens.

In flat B the open plan style living/kitchen room is served by a fully glazed door to the rear elevation. Considering the orientation of the appeal property, open plan arrangement and the size of the glazed door, I am satisfied that from the evidence before me and my observations on site, that occupants receive good levels of light throughout the day. This is further reinforced by the glazed door serving the living/kitchen room to flat B achieving a [name] of above 39.37% as per the appellant’s Daylight and [name] indicating that this room is served by good levels of light.

I note the parties dispute on whether the kitchen at [name] complies with the guidance set out in the Council’s Sustainable Design and [name] (the SPD) (2016) that a habitable room has a floor area of 13 sqm or more. However, following the submission of the amended plan which has partially removed the wall separating the living area and the kitchen, the room would now indefinitely be over 13sqms and is served by the appropriately sized glazed door. I therefore consider the proposal to comply with the guidance set out in the SPD with occupants provided with satisfactory living conditions.

Turning to [name] the Council also highlighted concerns regarding the elongated Living/Kitchen/Dining area and how this impacts the levels of light experienced in this room. [name] acknowledge that the open plan living area to [name] is deep, it is served by two large glazed French doors which allows a good level of light into this space. As a result, based on the submitted evidence and my observations on my site visit, the light levels received from the glazing, when combined with the orientation of the property, result in acceptable living conditions for the unit’s occupants. Whilst there is less light received at the far side of the room, I am unconvinced that this results in unacceptable living conditions for occupants.

I therefore consider that the development provides acceptable living conditions for the occupants at the appeal site with specific regard to light. The proposal therefore complies with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy HOU03 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) which both amongst other things seek for development to provide good levels of amenity for occupiers.

The fact that the subdivision of the appeal building has been conducted without planning permission is not a reason to dismiss the appeal. The development should be judged against material planning considerations. Concerns have been raised regarding a non-compliance at the appeal site with a previous planning permission, however this is outside the remit of this appeal. Any such concerns would be a matter for the Council’s planning enforcement department. In addition, any further proposals would be subject to an assessment from the Council.

Whilst the general condition of a property is typically not a determinative factor in planning applications, when I visited the site, it appeared to be in reasonable condition and well maintained. Any concerns regarding the storage of bins have been dealt with via a suitably worded condition. Furthermore, the access and parking arrangements would be satisfactory and there is no evidence that highway safety would be compromised.

Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the proposal resulting in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. However, due to the intervening distances that exist, the proposal does not result in any significant loss of privacy for the occupants of neighbouring houses. In addition, considering the residential nature of the proposal, it is unlikely to result in unacceptable levels of noise or excessive comings and goings.

In addition, there is not any firm evidence to suggest that the development would have any materially adverse effect on the supply of housing in the borough, cause additional drainage problems, be structurally unsound or result in any environmental and safety harm. Furthermore, any disturbance during construction would be for a temporary period only.

Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the potential for the proposal to harm the character and appearance of the area. However, although I am mindful that the reason for refusal addressed the impact on living conditions alone, I am nevertheless satisfied that the proposals design and layout does not result in an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area or host building.

I also note concerns from third parties that the development sets a precedent for similar development. However, I have no substantive evidence before me of any prevalence of similarly laid out properties in the immediate area to indicate that the proposal would lead to increased pressure for other similar developments. In any case, other proposals requiring planning permission could be considered by the Council on their own merits.

Time limit and plans conditions are necessary and reasonable in order to provide certainty. In the interest of living conditions, a condition securing the residential layout at the appeal site has been included. In addition, in the interests of character and appearance, as well as highway safety, conditions requiring the provision of bin storage, cycle storage and parking provision have been included.

The proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the above conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.