Appeal 6002667

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading is that amended by the Council at validation stage and used in the Council’s decision notice.

The Council considered there to be insufficient information for it to be able to determine whether the proposed development would cause harm to protected species and biodiversity, including bats. As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted a [name] Appraisal1, a [name] Assessment2 and a plan showing the distances to neighbouring buildings. As this additional information does not materially evolve the scheme, I am content to accept their submission for information purposes and am satisfied that no party with a potential interest in the outcome of this appeal is prejudiced by me doing so.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, • the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regards to outlook and privacy; and • local biodiversity, including protected species. 1 Prepared by Ecology Partnership dated December 2025 2 Prepared by the Ecology Partnership dated November 2025

The appeal site forms part of the rear garden of [site address] , a two-storey property which has lawful use as a House of [name] for 10 people. The site is partially occupied by a single storey double garage with off road parking to the front, accessed via [address]. The appeal site adjoins [address], a dwelling with double pitched roof, a detached double flat roof garage associated with [address] and the rear garden of [address].

[address] and Etchingham Park Road comprise a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terrace houses with front gardens or parking areas. Whilst dwellings are a mix of design there is a consistency in their appearance through the use of similar traditional materials and architectural details including front facing gables and porch canopies. The rear gardens of properties along Etchingham Park Road are long and drop slightly downwards from the building line towards the appeal site. [name] observed that there are some outbuildings, views are afforded across the rear gardens from Park Crescent and [address], so they remain open in character and appearance. There is a regularity to the pattern of the surrounding area through rooflines, building lines and orientation, which along with the spacious, open rear gardens contribute positively to the verdant character and appearance of the area.

The proposed dwelling would have a modern appearance with brick to the ground floor and [name] cladding to the first floor and roof. It would replace the existing garage and lean-to shed on the site but would be two storeys in height and have a larger footprint. The principal elevation of the dwelling would face onto [address] but would be positioned behind the double garage of [address], with its rear elevation aligning broadly with that of [address]. [name] note that the garages at the end of [address] have different setbacks they are ancillary buildings associated with the main dwellings and don’t form part of the main building line of the houses. Therefore, the setback position of the proposed dwelling to the rear of a double garage would be out of keeping with the consistent building line along [address].

The ridge height of the proposed dwelling would sit approximately 1.32m above the ridge height of [address]. This, in combination with being set back behind the flat roofed garage building would create an awkward stepped roofline arrangement at the end of the street. The use of zinc cladding at first floor level would add to its visual obtrusiveness within the street scene. The scale and materials of the proposed dwelling, together with its setback position would be a discordant addition which would erode the regular pattern of development in the surrounding area.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned up to the boundary with No [address] and No [address]. The rear garden of [site address] would be subdivided by the erection of a 1.8m high timber fence, providing a garden space in the area adjoining [address], albeit much of this space would be taken by the proposed planting. The dwelling’s position right up to the adjoining boundaries, in combination with its height would visually dominate the plot, contrary to the spacious layout of dwellings and gardens in the surrounding area. Furthermore, it would disrupt the open views across rear gardens resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant has referred me to appeals which were allowed at [address], [address] and [address], however I have not been provided with all the details relating to these cases. The circumstances in each proposal are likely to be different, and in any event the fact that apparently similar development has been granted permission is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development.

In conclusion, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It thereby conflicts with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025), together these policies seek amongst other things to ensure the best use of land by following a design led approach which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building patterns of development, scale, massing and roof form.

The Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD) provides detailed guidance on standards relating to new development. To safeguard residential amenity, the SPD states that to ensure privacy there should be a minimum distance of about 21m between properties with facing windows to habitable rooms to avoid overlooking and 10.5m to a neighbouring garden.

The proposed dwelling would have windows at both ground and first floor levels which would face towards neighbouring dwellings along Etchingham Park Road. There would be no windows facing towards the back of the rear garden of [address] nor [address]. A 1.8m high timber fence would be erected to separate the gardens of the proposed dwelling and [site address] , with trees planted along the boundary to provide screening. Whilst this would reduce views into neighbouring dwellings at the ground floor level, there would still be clear lines of sight between the dwellings at first floor level.

The additional plans submitted as part of the appeal shows that views from the first floor of the proposed dwelling would be approximately, 19.8m from the rear windows of No 45 and 20.4m distance from the rear windows of No. 47 both of which would fall below the minimum distances set out in the SPD. Whilst sight lines to No 47 would be at an angle, views would be downwards towards the windows of neighbouring properties and into their gardens. I observed during my site visit that when standing next to the existing garage it was possible to see into the rear parts of the rooms of No 47 despite no lights being on at the time. Therefore, based on the submitted plans and my observations I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring residents with regards to privacy. Furthermore, the proposal would lead to unacceptable levels of overlooking into the rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings.

Whilst the appellant puts forward that the existing trees in neighbouring gardens would provide some screening, this would only be when trees are in leaf and in any case could be removed at any time. I therefore do not consider that this would provide appropriate mitigation to the impact of the proposal on the privacy of neighbouring residents. The appellant has also suggested a condition for the use of obscured glazing to the lower parts of the first-floor windows of the new dwelling. However, it would still be possible to view into these areas from the unobscured parts of the windows. Moreover, this would also reduce outlook for future occupants resulting in harm to their living conditions.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned right up to the boundary of the rear garden of No. 47. Whilst the roof pitch would run away from the boundary its height would still create a large expanse of walling right against the boundary, which would increase the sense of enclosure along this part of the garden of No.47. Nevertheless, given the size of this garden I do not consider that it would result in an unacceptable level of harm to residential amenity of neighbouring residents with regards to outlook.

Overall, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regards to privacy. It thereby conflicts with Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policies CDH01 and CDH07 of the Barnet Local Plan, which seek amongst other things to ensure that new development provides a good standard of amenity and allows for acceptable levels of privacy for adjoining and potential occupants.

As the proposal involves the demolition of an existing building there is potential for the proposed development to impact bats which are a protected species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. As such, they are afforded protection under UK and EU-derived legislation.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) submitted as part of the appeal included a site survey conducted on 5th June 2025, which is during the optimal survey period for bats. The survey concluded that the existing garage has negligible suitability for roosting bats, whilst the limited habitat within the site provides negligible opportunities for foraging and commuting bats. Furthermore, no evidence of badgers or other mammals were identified within the site and due to the lack of suitable habitat other protected species are unlikely to be present within the site. Although the PEA concluded that no further surveys are required, it included several precautionary recommendations, with regards to bats, mammals and birds. However, I am satisfied that these matters could be dealt with by

The proposal involves the demolition of a hardstanding with the loss of approximately 25sqm of on-site habitat. The Statutory Biodiversity Metric and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment submitted with the appeal state that based on the proposed habitat creation outlined in the submitted plans, there would be a 141.25% net gain in biodiversity at the site. Therefore, based on this additional evidence I am satisfied that the site would achieve the minimum requirement for at least 10% net gains in biodiversity.

Therefore, the proposed development would not result in harm to biodiversity and protected species and thereby accords with Policy G6 of the London Plan and Policy ECC07 of the Barnet Local Plan. These policies amongst other things seek to ensure that development makes the fullest contributions to enhancing biodiversity and protects existing site ecology.

Concerns have been raised by third parties in relation to the impact of the proposal on parking pressure along [address]. However, I note that subject to the requirement for the provision of one car park space and one long stay cycle parking space the highways team did not object to the proposal.

I have also noted concerns relating to possible damage to trees and shrubs on adjoining land. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on the main issues for the reasons given above, I have not addressed these matters further.

The proposed development would provide an additional family sized dwelling and utilise part of the site occupied by a building, which would make a minor but nevertheless important contribution to meeting local housing needs. However, it would cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regards to privacy. These significant harms are not outweighed by the benefits which I have identified and are sufficient to justify dismissing the appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.