Appeal 6001871

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for New outbuilding with hard landscaping at [site address] , [site address] , Whetstone, Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/2886/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no PL01.

The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name], dated 10th November 2025. [In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.]

No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans.

If any retained tree is cut down, uprooted or destroyed or dies another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and shall be planted, in accordance with condition 3, at such time as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

Following the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name], the Council has advised they no longer wish to defend the third reason for refusal in respect of the effect of the proposed development upon existing trees, subject to a planning condition requiring development to be carried out in Appeal Decision: 6001871 accordance with the recommendations in the method statement. I therefore do not address this matter in the reasoning below.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and any relevant development plan policies; and • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets.

According to paragraph 154 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The courts have held that an extension for the purposes of that provision can include structures which are physically detached from the building of which they are an extension.1

The proposed single storey building would be sited in the corner of the front garden less than 20m from the main house and to the rear of an existing paved parking area and have a footprint of 26.4 sqm. It would provide parking for 1 car and have an attached bin storage area. Given its proposed use, scale and position within the curtilage of the house it would be a domestic adjunct and can be considered an extension to the existing house.

Although described by the Council as a detached property, the appeal property is a semi-detached house comprising various 2 storey elements. At the front of the house a narrow 2 storey section joins the neighbouring house. Attached to the back of it there is a wider 2 storey wing with rear projecting sections which are constructed of brick with gable ends to the side and rear.

The planning history provided in the Council Officer’s Delegated Report starts in 2016, with approved applications for a single storey extension, and alterations and an extension to a porch. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I assume the 2 storey elements I have described form the original house and that the only additions to it are those which were approved and have been implemented since 2016.

No dimensions have been provided to me of the original building or the existing extensions. Nonetheless, from my observations on site the single storey flat roofed rear extension covers less than half the width of the rear of the house and projects approximately 1m from its rear wall. The porch alterations are similarly modest.

The Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD) advises extensions in the Green Belt that increase the volume of the 1 [name] v SSLUHC, [name] & [name] [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) Appeal Decision: 6001871 building by more than 25% of the original building are likely to be considered disproportionate. Based on approximate measurements of the house taken from the site plan, the proposed building would cover less than 30% of the ground floor area of the house excluding the extensions I have described. Given that the proposed building would be single storey and the original building is 2 storey it would fall within the SPD volumetric threshold.

The proposal would not, therefore, be a disproportionate addition to the original building and would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Consequently, it would not be harmful to openness or to any of the purposes of the Green Belt and therefore complies with Section 13 of the Framework, Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), Policy ECC06 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP) and the SPD which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The appeal site is set back from the road behind a grass verge with a narrow informal footpath between it and a picket fence which runs along its front boundary. A high dense hedge, and mature trees both sides of the fence, screen views from the road and path into the appeal site.

Houses nearby are set back from the road in substantial grounds with brick wall or hedge boundaries. Green verges with mature trees limit views of buildings and contribute to the character of the area which is described in the Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement (2008) (CACAS) as low density and rural with agricultural remnants and large houses.

The Totteridge Conservation Area Character [name] shows the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour, identified together as [site address] , as being locally listed. The CACAS describes the building as a barn with remnants of 17th century timber framing and forming part of a group of buildings which give this section of the CA a more formal village atmosphere.

The local listing description relates more to the front of the 2 properties, which have dark horizontal wooden weather boarding and an uneven tiled roof which appears older than the brick elements on the appeal property and has a more barn like appearance. The pair have an approximately 2m high brick boundary wall which projects from, and divides, the front elevation and separates their curtilages. To the front and side of the buildings there is a large, detached [name] listed building, [address].

The distance between the proposed building and [address] and the clear separation between their curtilages is enough that the proposal would not harm the setting of the listed building and there would be no intervisibility between the 2 buildings from public viewpoints because of the vegetation screening the proposal. The proposed building would be clad in horizontal painted timber boards and have a tiled roof to match the frontage of [site address] and reflect its local listing description. In my view, it would complement the locally listed building rather than harming its appearance or setting.

The Council describe its proposed position to the front of the house as being out of character with the open aspect and uncluttered surroundings associated with properties in the area where outbuildings are located behind houses. However, the proposed building would not be visible from public viewpoints, as is the case with Appeal Decision: 6001871 much of the frontage of most houses nearby of which the CACAS notes there are only glimpsed views because of their high boundary features. The CACAS also noted that an important characteristic of the Totteridge Common Character Area is large houses with several detached service buildings usually fronting the road. Therefore, even if the hedgerows were significantly cutback and the proposed building was partially visible, it would not conflict with the identified character of the area and would thus preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the CA or the setting of locally listed [address] or [name] listed [address] and there would be no conflict with Section 16 of the Framework, Policies D3 and HC1 of the LP, Policies CDH01 and CDH08 of the BLP and the CACAS which seek to conserve the significance of heritage assets and their settings.

The standard time limit condition and a plans condition are necessary to provide certainty. Other conditions are necessary to protect trees and the character and appearance of the area. Subject to these and for the reasons given the appeal should succeed.