Appeal 6002866

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the site address and the development description given in the appeal form in the banner heading above. It better describes the location of the building subject to this appeal and is a more concise description of the proposal and removes superfluous text from that set out in the application form.

I observed during my site visit that the development has been carried out, which appears to accord with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The main issues are: • whether the development provides adequate living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to the internal floor to ceiling height; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy D6 of The London Plan (March 2021) (LP) relates to housing quality and requires all self-contained residential accommodation to meet stated minimum standards. This includes for private internal space, the minimum floor to ceiling height must be 2.5m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area (GIA) of each dwelling. Paragraph 3.6.3 adds that this standard is required so that new housing is of adequate quality, especially in terms of daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling, and sense of space. A reduction to this minimum height, for up to 25% of the GIA, is allowed for some essential equipment in the ceiling of kitchens and bathrooms.

Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan (2021-2036) (BLP) promotes high quality design and requires, amongst other things, compliance with the requirements set out in Tables 8 and 9 for the internal layout and design of new homes. Table 9 is consistent with LP Policy D6 in terms of the minimum floor to ceiling height standard.

A claim by the appellant that the development is demonstrably capable of providing internal heights of approximately 2.3m to 2.4m in most of the unit has not been challenged by the Council. In the absence of contrary evidence and from my own observations, I have no reason to doubt this. Consequently, the development does not meet the minimum floor to ceiling height standards.

I saw that the internal accommodation has a general open plan L-shaped configuration. The kitchen area has a small window above the sink, which faces directly onto the side of a static caravan. The living area has 3 main windows, of which 2 look onto an embankment that appears to have had vegetation cut back. The third window looks out onto a more open and level area that also appears to have had the vegetation cut back, as well as the side of the adjacent caravan. There is also a high-level window next to the door into the shower room. 2 windows to the bed area also face the embankment as well as a high-level window facing the outdoor amenity area.

The findings of the appellant’s Daylight and [name] have not been disputed by the Council. My site visit took place during the middle of the day when conditions were dry and clear. Despite viewing the unit with the lights on and the presence of full height mirrored wardrobe doors in the bed area, I found the internal environment oppressive. The ceiling height was a noticeable contributing factor to this and created an unacceptable feeling of enclosure and lacked an overall sense of space.

It has been suggested by the appellant that a planning condition could be utilised to secure compliance with the minimum floor to ceiling height standard. Nevertheless, in the absence of specific details on how this could be achieved within the constraints of the existing building, it is unclear whether such measures could be secured by a planning condition.

Appeals1 have been presented to me in support of the development. In the first appeal, details had been submitted demonstrating compliance with the minimum floor to ceiling height standard. In the second case, the Inspector identified a modest breach in the minimum internal space standards but, amongst other things, found the spacious and airy feel in the lounge and first floor bedroom resulted in an acceptable form of accommodation when looked at in the round. Due to the lack of details demonstrating compliance with the minimum floor to ceiling height standard and no identified factors to mitigate for the deficiency, a comparison to these appeals is of limited relevance in this instance. I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits. 1 Appeal Refs|: APP/N05090/W24/3367137 & APP/N5090/W22/3329566

Whilst the matter of the minimum floor to ceiling height standard was not raised in a previous appeal2 (the 2024 decision) at the site, I must determine the current appeal scheme on its individual merits and the evidence before me.

The ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ (March

uses a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m for at least 75% of the GIA. The justification for the greater standard in LP Policy D6 and BLP Policy CDH01 is clear that this is to address the impact of the urban heat island effect and the fact that the majority of housing developments in London are made up of flats.

For the above reasons, the development fails to provide adequate living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to the internal floor to ceiling height. It therefore conflicts with LP Policy D6, BLP Policy CDH01, as well as the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (October 2016) ([name]) and [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (October 2016) ([name]). In addition to setting out the standard referred to above, these policies seek to ensure that development provides comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose and offer a good standard of amenity for occupiers.

[site address] is a single storey building that forms part of a larger collection of buildings and structures, that is located at the end of a ribbon development consisting mainly of larger houses set within generous plots. Surrounding these are predominantly open field and playing fields, many with trees and vegetation along the boundaries. There is no dispute between the parties that the building subject to this appeal has become lawful through the passage of time.

In making the 2024 decision, the Inspector highlighted that the larger site provided residential accommodation in a mix of low buildings and mobile homes that have become lawful through the passage of time. I saw mounds of earth and materials next to an excavator to the rear of the larger site as well as outdoor storage behind gates. On the basis of the evidence before me and my observations, my own findings reflect those of the Inspector in the 2024 decision in that it does not appear to benefit from careful planning.

The buildings and structures on the wider site are generally of a low nature and set behind an embankment. However, due to the elevated nature of [address] at the top of the embankment, the low height of the boundary fence and cleared vegetation, there are unobstructed views deep into the site. Consequently, the site is prominent along this stretch of [address]. Moreover, due to the dominant area of flat roof, the condition of the caravan and the external materials of the buildings, including the appeal site, I found the wider site to be at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of its surroundings.

Consequently, I have come to the same conclusion as the Inspector on the 2024 decision in that, on account of the substandard nature of the accommodation, the development consolidates residential development on the wider site, which detracts from the local environment nearby. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/C/23/331449

In conclusion, I have found the development to have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to LP Policy D3, BLP Policy CDH01, [name] and [name], which collectively seek developments of high architectural and urban design quality, including high standards of homes, that respond sensitively to the distinctive local character of the existing context.

I sympathise with the current occupier’s personal circumstances as detailed in the appeal submissions. This includes the ability to remain in familiar surroundings in terms of wellbeing, stability and access to care. The personal circumstances in that respect do carry weight in the determination of the appeal. However, the weight I attach is moderate.

On the evidence before me, dismissing the appeal could lead to the current occupier having to find new accommodation and being placed on the Council’s housing register, which would engage the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This includes having due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic, which includes age, and persons who do not.

Notwithstanding this, there is no evidence to demonstrate that suitable accommodation could not be provided elsewhere, despite the alleged number of households currently on the Council’s housing register, where it would not result in the harms I have identified above. In having due regard to the PSED, the adverse effects of dismissing this appeal on persons with protected characteristics would, on the basis of the evidence before me, be proportionate in this instance when balanced against the well-established and legitimate planning purposes of national and local planning policies.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

I give significant weight to the conflict with [name] D3 and D6, and BLP Policy CDH01, which are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character and in the creation of a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. As a result, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The appellant’s Planning Statement submitted with the planning application refers to the Council having a significant housing delivery shortfall, though it is not referred to in the Council’s Officer report or elsewhere in the parties’ appeal submissions.

For the purpose of my assessment, if the Council were unable to show a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. Paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including securing well-designed places.

The development has delivered a single dwelling for 1 person that meets the minimum GIA standard, incorporating cycle storage within private amenity space, a dedicated off-street parking space, on previously developed land by utilising an existing building with infrastructure and utilities. Moreover, it brings with it other economic and social benefits. Due to the limited scale of the development and thereby the limited scale of the benefits, I afford them limited weight in the planning balance. I have considered the Framework, which emphasises the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and the planning system’s three overarching objectives.

There is no dispute between the parties that the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is a neutral factor, which neither weighs for nor against the development. The visual dimension of the openness of the Green Belt does not exhaust all relevant planning factors relating to the visual impact of a proposal in the Green Belt. These are different assessments, and it is possible that a different conclusion on openness could be reached to that on the effects on character and appearance.

On the other side of the balance, the development does not provide adequate living conditions for existing and future occupiers and has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, which are contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting effects on both the living conditions of residents and the character and appearance of the area, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, even if the Council were unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.