Appeal 6002815

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council contend that the plans show unlawful rear and side extensions. Based on the appellant’s submissions it is clear that the development proposed is for the front extension only. For the avoidance of doubt, my assessment concerns the effect of the proposed front extension only.

There is an existing unlawful front extension at the appeal property. Given its unlawful nature, this has not factored in my assessment of this appeal, and my decision is based on the appeal property prior to the installation of the aforementioned unlawful front extension.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the Finchley Church End Conservation Area; and • Living conditions of the occupiers of the first floor flat.

The appeal site is located within the Finchley Church End Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The Finchley Church End Conservation Area Character Appraisal and [name] (2011) (CAA) describes the character of Regents Park Road as noisy in character with the bustle of traffic, offices and shops. It goes on to describe the built environment as having a mixed character, formed of two distinct zones with shopping parades and Victorian terraced houses on one side contrasting with large scale modern development on the other. The street scene is generally wide, with the gentle incline of the road allowing for good views along it. This reflects my site visit observations with the Victorian buildings, wide street scene, and uninterrupted views along, all distinctive features of the CA, contributing to its significance.

The appeal property appears Victorian, with a restaurant on the ground floor and residential accommodation above, contributing to the collection of Victorian buildings on this side of the road. Its distinctive yellow London brick with red brick detailing and carved wooden gable fascias form a traditional presence within the street scene. It’s setback relationship from the highway contributes to the openness of the street scene and enforces the wide vistas along it. As such, the appeal property enhances the value and the quality of this part of the CA.

The appeal proposal would create a notable projection beyond the front elevation of the appeal building, reducing the gap between the front building line and the highway. Whilst a modest set back would remain between the front elevation of the proposal and the pavement, the encroachment would still harm the openness of the street scene. The proposal would be single storey and the upper floors would remain visible, however it would occupy the majority of the ground floor front elevation appearing as a dominant addition and detracting from the host building. The mono-pitched fiberglass roof and extensive glazing would appear at odds with the traditional design and materials of the host building, detracting from its character. The use of a lower section of matching brick work would do little to mitigate the discordance of the proposal and resultant harm to the host property. Therefore, the development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA and harms its significance as a heritage asset.

Given the scale of the development within the context of the CA as a whole, I consider the harm to its significance to be on the lower end of less than substantial. Nevertheless, paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) directs when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of the level of harm.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant contends that the proposal would aid the long term viability of the business and create an improved active frontage and street-level engagement. Nevertheless, I have been presented with limited evidence as to why a less harmful development could not achieve the additional floor space or active frontage. As such, I can only afford these benefits limited weight which would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA as a heritage asset.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the public benefits would not outweigh this harm. As such, the development conflicts with the relevant provisions of Policies CDH01 and CDH08 of the of the Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 (2025) (the Local Plan). When read together these require development to have regard to local historic context and character, and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas.

The first floor flat above the restaurant has a dining/ kitchen area to the front of the property. Based on the submitted plans this appears to be the primary living space. The use of the proposal has the potential to generate additional noise and would be directly below the two front windows for the dining/ kitchen area of the above flat, adversely affecting the living conditions of its occupiers.

The appellant contends that a Noise Impact Assessment is being undertaken and will be submitted with the appeal, nonetheless no such assessment has been received. Further, no condition to secure effective noise mitigation through such methods as insultation or glazing has been presented to me.

As such, the proposal would likely have an unacceptable effect on the occupiers of the first floor flat. Therefore, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies CDH01 and ECC02 of the Local Plan. When read together these require development to mitigate adverse noise impacts and avoid generation of unacceptable noise levels close to noise sensitive uses.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.