Appeal 6003357

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal in the banner heading is taken from the application form. However, the Council has described the proposal as ‘conversion of the existing dwelling into 2 no. self-contained flats including single storey rear extension. Associated refuse/recycling and amenity space’. As this is a more accurate description, that specifies the development proposed, I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • whether the proposal provides adequate living conditions for future occupants with regard to privacy and space standards; and • the effect of the proposal on the housing mix of the area; and • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for car parking.

The proposal relates to a semi-detached dwelling house located within a predominantly residential context. The locality displays a coherent pattern of development, with consistent building lines and attractive period properties that collectively contribute to the area’s established residential character.

The dwelling house has previously been extended through side and rear dormers, alongside a ground floor extension with conversion of the garage into living accommodation. The proposed single storey ground floor extension would extend the full length of the garden area to the rear boundary of the appeal site. Its scale and form would appear excessive and incongruous, resulting in the garden being subdivided into two small amenity areas on either side of the extension. Consequently, it would not appear as a subservient extension to the host dwelling, and I find that its overall scale and design would fail to provide a sympathetic addition to the property. Although positioned to the rear, the extension would remain visible from neighbouring properties and would appear discordant in this context.

I have had regard to the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (RDGSPD). The RDGSPD states that rear extensions should not appear too bulky and prominent compared to the size of the main building and garden space to which they relate. The proposal would conflict with this relevant guidance, which is a material consideration and reinforces my findings.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (LP) (2021) which relates to optimising site capacity through the design-led approach in new development. The policy requires proposals to enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their scale, appearance and shape.

Additionally, I find conflict with Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP). Amongst other matters, the policy promotes high quality design which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing and height of the existing context. Furthermore, the proposal is contrary to Policy CDH05 of the BLP in so far as it supports proposals for extensions to any building that complement the character of the existing building, particularly in terms of style, form and materials and are subordinate to the existing building in terms of size and scale.

The rear bedroom window in the first floor flat (flat 2) would directly overlook the bedroom windows proposed in the rear extension of the ground floor flat (flat 1). The close separation distance between these directly facing windows would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for future occupiers of both flats. This impact would be greater for flat 1, as the windows of flat 2 are positioned on higher ground, thereby increasing the degree of overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy. The mitigation measures suggested by the appellant would not secure a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers of the accommodation.

This is contrary to guidance in the [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2016), which requires a minimum distance of 21m between properties with facing windows to habitable rooms (which includes bedrooms) to avoid overlooking in residential development. The RDGSPD also sets out that where conversion takes place, future occupiers should enjoy a high standard of amenity. The proposal would therefore conflict with the above guidance, which is a material consideration and thus reinforces my findings.

[name] 1 would meet the minimum space requirements of the BLP, LP and [name] – [name] (2015), there is dispute regarding the floorspace provision of flat 2. Based on the evidence provided, Flat 2 clearly falls significantly short of the required 79sqm for a 2 bedroom, 4 person dwelling over 2 storeys, providing only around 69 sqm of internal floorspace. This would result in insufficient internal space for future occupiers and an unsatisfactory living environment.

I have also considered the floor to ceiling height necessary to ensure a usable and liveable environment. The evidence before me shows that flat 2 does not meet the requirement of an internal ceiling height of 2.5m across 75 per cent of the floor area (when considering both the first and second floors of the proposed unit). A small proportion of the loft space achieves this standard, resulting in a cramped and restricted living environment across the remainder of the second floor of the property. The above standards are minimum requirements to be provided and are not flexible in their interpretation or to be compensated by other considerations such as the provision of outside amenity space.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupants with regard to privacy and space standards. This is contrary to Policy CDH01 of the BLP which, amongst other matters, requires new development to provide a good standard of amenity for potential occupants with acceptable levels of privacy and outlook and comply with the internal layout and design of new homes. I also find conflict with Policy HOU03 of the BLP in so far as it requires a good standard of living conditions and amenity for future occupiers in terms of privacy and outlook.

I further find the proposal to be contrary to Policy D3 of the LP which, amongst other requirements, requests proposals to deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity and achieve indoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use. The proposal is also contrary to Policy D6 of the LP which sets out housing development quality and standards which, amongst other matters, requires that the minimum floor to ceiling height must be 2.5m for at least 75 per cent of the Gross Internal Area of each dwelling.

The appeal proposal would convert the existing three-bedroom dwelling house into 2 self-contained 2-bedroom flats. Policy HOU03 of the BLP relates to conversions and sets out criteria to be met in allowing such proposals. In HOU03 (A) sites should have a PTAL rating of 3 or above or are located within 800m walking distance of a station or town centre boundary. The site is located in a lower PTAL rating of 2, with the nearest town centre located around 950m from the property, and therefore beyond the walking distance required by the policy. [name] note the appellant’s commentary that the site is accessible by bus routes and that there may be other flat conversions in the locality, including at [address], I have not been provided with evidence that demonstrates that this policy consideration has been met.

Turning to Policy HOU03 (B) of the BLP, I find that the proposal accommodates 2 bedroom flats and would not offer compensatory provision for the loss of family sized accommodation and would therefore fail to satisfy the objectives of the policy. The policy is clear in setting out that family sized provision relates to residential accommodation which is 3 bedrooms or above. Whilst it is acknowledged that external amenity space is provided, this does not compensate for the loss of family sized residential provision.

There is no dispute between the parties that the quantum of existing floor area meets the required threshold with regard to Policy HOU03 (C) of the BLP. With regard to criteria (D) of the above policy, I find that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property and the wider locality. Furthermore, the living standards are not satisfactory for future occupiers with regard to criteria (E). Whilst car and cycle parking provision (F) is addressed in the following section of the decision, for the reasons already set out, the proposal has been found to be unacceptable in respect of the conversion of the property.

I therefore conclude that the subdivision of the dwelling house into 2 self-contained 2-bedroom flats, would result in the loss of family sized accommodation, detrimental to the housing mix of the area and, as such, would conflict with the provisions in Policy HOU03 of the BLP that seek to prevent such an occurrence. I also find the proposal to be contrary to Policy CDH01 of the BLP in so far as it seeks development to deliver the most appropriate form and land use for the site, with consideration of local context and accessibility by walking and cycling and existing and planned public transport and infrastructure. Furthermore, I find conflict with the provisions of Policy D3 of the LP where higher density developments should generally be promoted in locations that are well connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling.

The property is set back from the public highway behind a front garden area consisting of hard standing materials, with a vehicular cross over to the public highway. The appellant sets out that this area can accommodate off street parking for 2 vehicles. A street tree is located to the front of the appeal site.

The Council consider the existing parking area and dropped kerb inadequate to accommodate 2 vehicles and require further information to assess the suitability of the parking arrangement, which is restricted through the siting of the street tree. Furthermore, the officer report sets out that the maximum parking standard is 2 spaces. However, I find that based on the BLP residential car parking standards, the maximum requirement for the proposal is 1.5 spaces, based on 0.75 spaces per 2-bedroom unit in an area with a PTAL rating of 2. Given that the Council considers that the site can currently provide parking for one off street vehicle, the proposal would comply with the relevant parking standards, and no shortfall would occur given that the requirements are a maximum provision.

Whilst the Council refers to parking stress in the locality, I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate this, and I note that the appeal site is located outside any designated controlled parking zone. Furthermore, cycle parking could be secured through appropriate condition, offering future occupants a realistic alternative to the private car and I acknowledge that the site is reasonably well located to accessible bus services.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect in relation to on street parking provision in the area. Accordingly, the proposal would not be contrary to Policy TRC03 of the BLP which requires residential development to provide car parking in accordance with the maximum standards. I further find no conflict with Policy T4 of the LP in so far as the policy requires development proposals not to increase road danger. I additionally find no conflict with Policy T6.1 of the LP which relates to maximum residential development car parking standards.

I acknowledge that there have been previous planning permissions granted for subdivision of the property to 2 flats. However, these predate the adoption of the current BLP, and their existence therefore does not alter my overall conclusions.

[name] note that the proposal would increase overall housing supply in the area and that the accommodation provides natural light and ventilation, these considerations do not overcome the harm I have found for the reasons set out above.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s reference to communication with the Council, but this has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues of this appeal.

I am satisfied that the development would make adequate provision for car parking. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.