Appeal 6003094

The appeal is dismissed.

As well as this appeal I have also determined another appeal1 on the site regarding the erection of a pavilion building to accommodate a single dwelling with associated works. I have determined this appeal on its own merits and issued a separate decision notice for the other planning appeal.

This appeal follows refusal by the Council to approve hard and soft landscaping details required by condition 12 on a planning permission2 (the 2019 permission) for the site’s redevelopment and erection of a new apartment building. A previous landscaping scheme3 pursuant to condition 12 of the 2019 permission has been approved.

The proposal subject to this appeal reflects an alternative hard and soft landscaping scheme including the provision of an extended internal driveway towards the rear of the site with additional parking spaces and a turning head.

I saw on my site visit that the proposed driveway to the rear of the site as well as the additional parking spaces and turning head have been carried out, and they are not wholly consistent with the proposed landscape layout4 before me. Whilst 1 Appeal Ref: 6003092 2 Planning Ref: 18/03730/FUL 3 [name]. M2462.13N 4 [name]. M2462-PA-202-V8 the hardstanding as laid out has helped to inform my assessment, I have based my decision on the submitted plans.

The appeal site falls within the Totteridge Conservation Area (TCA) and is adjacent to a [name] listed building known as The Grange. I have exercised my statutory duties under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

In determining the appeal, I am only able to consider whether the requirements of the condition have been met. I am not able to reconsider the planning permission, the wording of the condition, or depart from the requirements of the condition.

The main issue is whether the submitted details meet the requirements of the condition with particular regard to whether they 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], which consists of a dense modern housing development.

No. 96 is a recent development comprising 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 the 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 break to be visible from Totteridge Village, from within the appeal site, and it would also be visible from neighbouring properties that back onto the site.

The extent of the hardstanding in the form of the extended driveway and associated parking spaces and turning head would occupy a significant area between the rear section of No.96 and the outdoor amenity space beyond it, and the rear boundary of properties located on [name]. Even with new landscaping, it would be visible from the public and private domains. The amount of hardstanding and lack of soft landscaping in this area would fail to provide spacious and landscaped grounds to this mansion house style property. Consequently, its implementation would lead to an erosion to the significance of the TCA where such mansion houses, set within large and well landscaped grounds, make a positive contribution. Using 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 National Planning Policy 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.

A technical Note5 has been provided to support the appellant’s claim that the submitted details represent a material betterment in highway safety terms. Recognising that my site visit is only a snapshot in time, I observed that not all the parking spaces were occupied and a vehicle was parked in the turning head, thereby reducing its effectiveness. Moreover, the presence of a HGV and smaller commercial vehicles, including a supermarket delivery van, parked on the road within the vicinity of the site, as well as buses stopping regularly, did not disrupt the free flow of traffic along Totteridge Village. Noting the positioning of a mature tree within a wide grass verge, I found visibility at the site’s access to be sufficient to view oncoming highway users.

The provision of a greater amount of space within the site to enable visiting vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear would reduce the likelihood of vehicles parking outside the site on [address] or reversing onto the highway. This does represent a material betterment in highway safety terms compared to the previously approved hard and soft landscaping scheme, which the Council claims provided a sufficient turning head.

On the evidence before me and my own observations, I am not persuaded that the parking of delivery vehicles, or similar, on Totteridge Village constitutes a hazard. In addition, no substantive evidence has been provided in relation to the road, such as traffic flows and speeds, and any records of accidents where reversing onto the highway was found to have been a contributing factor. Consequently, I afford this public benefit limited weight.

An area of outdoor amenity space to the west of No. 96 that makes a positive contribution to the significance of the TCA appeared to be well-maintained and accessible to residents of No. 96. Therefore, I attribute limited weight to the public benefits associated with the proposed enhancements and the long-term management of this space.

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 5 [name]: AM/251027/TN01 and hardstanding via a narrow gap between buildings facing [address] was possible. My own observations reflect the Council’s TCA Character Appraisal Statement in that [address] has a more suburban character than other parts of the TCA. Their presence has not swayed me away from my findings.

In conclusion, the limited public benefits would not outweigh the great weight to be attached to the conservation of heritage assets, and the submitted details would therefore conflict with the Framework.

For the above reasons, the submitted details fail to meet the requirements of the condition with particular regard to whether they would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the TCA. This is contrary to Policy HC1 of the London Plan (March 2021) and Policies CDH01, CDH07 and CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036. 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.

It has been raised by third parties that the submitted details go beyond what is allowed to be considered as a detail required by a condition of a planning permission and it should have been considered as a material minor amendment. I acknowledge the potential issue here. However, as I am dismissing as per my findings on the main issue, I have not considered the matter further.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.