Appeal 6001705

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects the proposed two-storey office building would have on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area and on the residential amenity of the neighbouring property at No [address].

There is no objection in principle to replacing the existing, established, single-story office building at the rear of No [site address] . The proposed modern building would bring a degree of positive planning benefit to the business of the Appellant and replace a utilitarian structure of minimal architectural merit.

However, the proposed two-storey structure, with a feature mansard roof and extensive glazing, would appear much more prominent than the modest corrugated metal outbuilding it would replace; and also compared with other utilitarian outbuildings at the rear of neighbouring properties in this largely commercial area.

I note that those neighbouring outbuildings are themselves varied in appearance and substantial in construction; but they appear appropriately subordinate to the main host buildings fronting [address] North. I consider that, in contrast, the building proposed at the rear of No 259 would seem insubordinate to the main building and unacceptably incongruous in its area context. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

As a result, the appeal proposal is in significant conflict with Policy CDHO1 of the adopted Barnet Local Plan (BLP) which, while promoting high quality design to optimise site capacity, crucially, requires new development to respond sensitively to local character.

The tall, extensively glazed windows of the proposed building would closely face the side of the rear garden of No [address], which currently enjoys a good level of privacy. The main window of the first-floor office, in particular, would introduce a level of potential overlooking that would result in a significant degree of both actual and perceived loss of privacy at No [address].

Notwithstanding a lack of local objection, in planning terms this would damage the residential amenity of that neighbouring property in further unacceptable conflict with BLP Policy CDHO1.

I recognise that the Appellant concedes that the development would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy and note the suggestion that this could be obviated by the installation of obscure glazing secured by planning condition; albeit that suggestion highlights the amenity objection to the application, as submitted and determined by the Council.

Moreover, this measure, applied to such a large area of glazing, would materially alter the proposal to an extent that I refrain from considering it in connection with this appeal, which is for assessment strictly on the details that were before the Council in determining the original application.

The provisions of the [name] cite above are essentially consistent both with the London Plan and national planning policy. Any slight benefit due to the development would be materially outweighed by the substantive planning objections I have identified, such that the disputed proposal is to be regarded as contrary to the development plan as a whole.

This warrants dismissal of the appeal.