Appeal 6003092

The appeal is dismissed.

As well as this appeal, I have also determined another planning appeal1 on the site regarding a refusal to grant consent, agreement or approval of details required by a condition of a planning permission. I have determined this appeal on its own merits and issued a separate decision notice for the other planning appeal.

During the determination of the application, an amended landscape layout plan2 was submitted and acknowledged by the Council. A list of plans accompanying the planning application are given in the Decision Notice and it includes an earlier version of the landscape layout plan. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this was done in error and I have considered the amended landscape layout plan in determining this appeal.

I saw on my site visit that the proposed driveway to the rear of the site as well as the associated parking spaces and turning area have been carried out, and they are not wholly consistent with the details shown on the amended landscape layout plan. Whilst the hardstanding as laid out has helped to inform my assessment, I have based my decision on the submitted plans.

Although the Decision Notice refers to ‘Totteridge Common Conservation Area’, submissions by the main parties and the Council’s conservation area’s [name] (2008) (CAS) all refer to ‘Totteridge Conservation Area’. In light of the submitted evidence, I am content that the correct name for the conservation area is ‘Totteridge Conservation Area’ (TCA) and the inclusion of ‘Common’ was in error. 1 Appeal Ref: 6003094 2 [name]. M2462-PA-02-V5 Appeal Decision 6003092 and 6003094

I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristics and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s age and religion or belief.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the TCA.

The TCA is located along a gravel ridge of higher ground that runs from west to east and comprises a ribbon of development clustered along the highway known as [name], Totteridge Village and [address]. This main road has wide verges with mature trees that result in an open and verdant appearance to the area. The significance of the TCA arises from its linear character, open and rural setting, high quality trees, planting and mixture of mansion houses in large grounds interspersed with modest cottages.

To the east of [site address] , is a group of cottages fronting Totteridge Village that are an informal group of modest, mainly nineteenth century, buildings that sit close to one another, in a manner typical of a village green. To the rear of these is [name], that consists of a dense modern housing development.

No. 96 consists of a recent development consisting of 5 apartments within a single detached building that has a main 2-storey element facing Totteridge Village and a deep 2-storey and single storey rear wing. It has the appearance and presence of a mansion house.

The appeal site marks a notable change when travelling west along Totteridge Village, from tightly packed modest properties to larger properties set within spacious landscaped grounds. A break in built form is provided between No. 96, to its rear and side, and the densely configured cottages and modern housing to the east. I found this is visible from Totteridge Village, from within the appeal site, and would also be visible from neighbouring properties that back onto the site.

The proposed development would introduce a detached 3-bed, single storey dwelling to the rear of No. 96 as well as an extension of the internal drive with the creation of additional parking spaces and a turning head. These would occupy a substantial amount of the approved open and landscaped area to the side and rear of the existing building3. This would reduce the level of spaciousness and landscaping surrounding the existing building and would be visible from public and private domains. Consequently, this would result in a form of development that would reflect the more densely developed nature of the land to the east rather than that of mansion houses in large grounds.

The scale of the proposed building to No. 96; the absence of any encroachment onto a historic field pattern, boundary, highway verge, tree or an important view; its neutral effect on property frontages or the linear character of the TCA; and the lack of any specific reference of the site in the SCA does not lead me away from the 3 Planning Ref: 18/03730/FUL and [name]. M2462.13N Appeal Decision 6003092 and 6003094 harm I have identified. Moreover, due to its proximity to the rear of No. 96 and the views afforded from Totteridge Village, the proposed building would appear to elongate the rear wing and not appear as a secondary outbuilding such as a staff accommodation or stables building.

Whilst a number of outbuildings and hardstanding were historically located to the rear of the site, an unchallenged claim has these being removed many decades ago. Although an aerial image of the site appears to show some remnants of the hardstanding and structures, these were all removed during the site’s redevelopment. A plan showing the historic built form on the appeal site indicates that the amount and distribution of buildings was materially different to that on the site today. Consequently, I give limited weight to the historical presence of buildings and hardstanding to the rear of the site in support of the appeal.

My attention has been drawn to a block of garages and an area of hardstanding to the west of the appeal site as well as a tennis court to the north. These do not have a presence from Totteridge Village. A very limited view of the garage block and hardstanding via a narrow gap between buildings facing [address] was possible. My own observations reflect the CAS in that [address] has a more suburban character than other parts of the TCA. Their presence has not altered my concerns about the proposed development.

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets. The proposal would be modest, and in the terminology of the Framework it would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the TCA as a designated heritage asset. I have found the harm to be at the lower end of the spectrum of ‘less than substantial harm’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of an accessible dwelling. There would also be associated social and economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwelling is occupied, as well as the delivery of [name] (BNG). Due to the limited scale of the proposed development and thereby the limited scale of these public benefits, I afford them moderate weight.

The proposed development incorporates new landscaping and the provision of pathways and benches to an outdoor amenity space to the west of No. 96, an area that previously formed part of the curtilage of The Grange, which is a Grade II Listed Building. I understand that planning permission and listed building consent4 have been granted for an opening within a listed wall to allow a more direct and convenient access between No. 96 and this outdoor amenity space.

Mature landscaping and a high brick wall dominate this space’s boundary with Totteridge Village, which positively contributes to the significance of the TCA. I observed that the space already appeared well-maintained and accessible to 4 Planning Refs:23/04894/FUL & 24/1343/LBC Appeal Decision 6003092 and 6003094 residents of the apartments via an existing path to the front of No. 96. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the proposed enhancements to, and securing a long-term viable and sustainable use of, this space would amount to more than limited public benefits.

Claims surrounding the under-occupation of family-sized housing in the wider housing market and that the proposal would serve to meet the needs of people looking to ‘downsize’ are not substantiated with specific evidence relating to the housing market of Totteridge or a localised geographical area. Therefore, I give this public benefit limited weight.

These moderate and limited public benefits would not outweigh the great weight to be attached to the conservation of heritage assets, and the proposed development would therefore conflict with the Framework.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the TCA. It would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP), and Policies CDH01, CDH07 and CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (BLP). Collectively, these policies seek, amongst other things, to promote high quality design that has regard to local historic context and character, as well as the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The reason for refusal in the Council’s Decision Notice refers to [name] D1 and D4. The former relates to Boroughs undertaking area assessments and using these in preparing Development Plans to meet borough-wide growth requirements. The latter covers good design, including the use of masterplans, design codes, interactive digital models, design reviews and maintaining design quality. Therefore, these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue.

The Council did not raise any concern on the impact of the proposed development on the setting of The Grange. Due to the intervening distance and the very extensive mature landscaping within the surrounding grounds, I have come to the same conclusion as the Council on this matter.

The Officer Report indicates that a financial contribution would be required for the monitoring of the BNG, which would need to be secured via a legal agreement. No such mechanism is before me. Given my reasoning in respect of the main issue and that the appeal is dismissed, I have not considered the matter further.

Evidence before me indicates that the existing apartments on the site are rented by people who are over a specific age and are of the same religion or belief. I appreciate that the proximity of the site, and the ability to walk, to a place of worship is an important factor. The creation of an additional dwelling at the site would increase the opportunity for a property to be occupied by persons seeking these requirements.

Notwithstanding this, there is no substantiated evidence to demonstrate that accommodation meeting these requirements is not available elsewhere and where it would not result in the harm I have identified. 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 Appeal Decision 6003092 and 6003094 this instance when balanced against the well-established and legitimate planning purposes of national and local planning policies.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.