Appeal 6002531

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

In respect of residential development, an applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and a maximum number of net dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for a single dwelling.

The appeal includes a proposed floor plan to demonstrate where the dwelling would be positioned. I have treated this information as illustrative.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

No. [address] is one of a pair of traditional semi-detached buildings which has been divided into flats, located a short walk from [name] and opposite a bus stop. Access to the site is via a path which runs down the side of the property. The rear garden of the property has been subdivided, and the appeal site relates to the garden associated with [name] and is located furthest away from the property. The site itself comprises a grassed area, enclosed by timber fencing with limited landscaping, however there are a number of trees in adjoining gardens which are protected through a Tree Preservation Order. The site adjoins a single storey dwelling which has a driveway accessed from [address].

The London Plan (2021) requires that in optimising site capacity, developments should enhance local context by delivering buildings that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their design and layout. Although the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) does not contain a policy which explicitly opposes the development of rear gardens, Policy CDH01 states that development proposals should respond sensitively to the distinctive local character and design.

[address] comprises a mix of traditional buildings and modern blocks of flats of various design. Whilst buildings have different sized footprints, they follow a consistent perimeter grid pattern with development fronting onto the road, with long rear areas being used for gardens, car parking and ancillary buildings. There are gaps between the buildings to the north of [address] which provide views towards the landscaping in rear gardens. There has been some development in rear gardens most notably the property which adjoins the appeal site. However, I observed that to the rear of [address], there are views across the open spaces between the buildings towards [address], with views in the opposite direction towards landscaping in neighbouring gardens. These views across rear gardens and the spaces between buildings contribute positively to the local character.

The proposed development would infill the existing rear garden area which would erode the important element of open space that contributes to the separation between buildings to the rear of [address]. This would represent a clear departure from the prevailing development pattern. Moreover, the proposed floor plan shows that the footprint of the proposed dwelling would occupy a substantial proportion of the plot, which would fail to reflect the established character of road frontage development with spacious gaps to the rear. The proposed development would thereby harm local distinctiveness. Although the proposal would not be prominent from the public domain, it would nevertheless be apparent from the rear of properties along both [address] and [address], accentuating its incongruous siting.

The appellant has referred me to two proposals for back land development which were allowed following appeal1. However, I have not been provided with the details of these cases and therefore cannot be certain that they are directly comparable to the appeal case. In any event I have considered this appeal on its own merits in light of the evidence before me.

For the reasons outlined above I conclude that the site is not suitable for residential development regarding its location and the proposed land use. The development would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan, which amongst other things seek to ensure that new development responds sensitively to the distinctive local character, building form and patterns of development. 1 APP/Q5300/D/13/2209053, APP/N5090/W/15/31007

Whilst there have been no objections to the proposal, the absence of objection does not in itself render the scheme acceptable.

The Council have also raised concerns in relation to the impact on trees, which would be addressed through the technical details consent stage and therefore I have not considered this matter.

The proposal would provide an additional detached dwelling which would make a minor but nevertheless important contribution to local housing supply. It would also provide some limited economic benefits during construction. However, these limited benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the significant conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.