Appeal 6003566

The appeal is dismissed.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is noted that the existing window arrangement is different on the Existing Ground Floor Plan (drawing no. 0828 – A04) compared to the [name] (drawing no. 0828 – A07). My site visit confirms that there are no existing windows on the rear elevation that serve the unit. I have therefore determined the appeal on that basis.

I have used the description of development as it appears on the application form. However, I have made a minor adjustment to it, removing superfluous punctuation.

The Council of the London Borough of Barnet adopted Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 (Local Plan) in March 2025. The original application was submitted after the adoption of the Local Plan. The Council’s Officer Report has referred to policies from the previous Local Plan which has since been superseded. I have considered the appeal before me based on the current Local Plan, and the Policies within it. The parties have also had the opportunity to do so.

The main issues are (a) whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with specific regard to private amenity space, outlook, sunlight, and daylight; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the provision of community facilities.

The appeal site is located on [site address] , near to [address]. [site address] is mixed in use, with residential flats and dwellings. A church, which has a café and community facilities is next to the site, and a service entrance to the shopping centre is further down [site address] .

The appeal site is a ground floor unit within a purpose built, mixed-use multi-storey building, which fronts [site address] . The ground floor is in use as a local community space, while the floors above are in residential use. Behind the appeal site is a service lane.

The proposal would provide a 3-bedroom flat. The main living area would be at the front of the flat, while and all 3 bedrooms would be located along the rear of the flat. A small area of front garden would be provided, together with 2 car parking spaces.

Paragraph 2.3.1 of the Barnet Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and Construction (2016) (SPD) identifies that outdoor amenity space is highly valued, and suitable provision would help to protect and improve the living standards of residents. Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) sets out the requirements for the amount of private outdoor amenity space which should be provided.

Despite the small area of front garden, the proposal would not provide any private outdoor amenity space. The appellant argues that the increased floor area of the residential unit would make up for the absence of outdoor amenity space. However, private outdoor amenity space is important for activities such as relaxation, playing, or clothes drying. The SPD notes that residential units with insufficient garden or amenity space are unlikely to provide good living conditions for future occupiers. I have not been provided with any evidence of whether any green spaces nearby exist which would help to offset the absence of private outdoor amenity space at the appeal site. Given that the proposal would not provide any private outdoor amenity space, it would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants in this regard.

To the rear of the appeal site is a narrow service lane which is flanked by the appeal site on one side, and a tall brick wall on the other. Together, they create a sense of enclosure on either side of the lane. There are no existing windows on the rear elevation of the unit. The height of the wall, compared to the width of the service lane would mean that, even if the bedroom windows were at eye level, occupants would have a very limited outlook onto the enclosed service lane. However, given that the proposed windows would be at a high level when viewed internally, the outlook from these windows would be restricted, providing an oppressive outlook to the future occupants of the proposal.

In addition, the high level of the windows, together with their small size and proximity of the brick wall opposite would limit the amount of daylight entering the bedrooms. The north-facing orientation would further limit the amount of sunlight reaching the bedrooms. I have not been provided with any detailed evidence that the bedrooms would have sufficient daylight and sunlight. Therefore, from the evidence before me, the proposal would not provide an adequate level of daylight or sunlight for the future occupants.

I acknowledge that the proposed windows would create a dual aspect flat, aiding cross ventilation. The appellant argues that the high level of the windows would provide an element of privacy for the future occupants. However, the access lane to the rear is higher than the internal floor level of the unit, therefore it is unlikely that the height of the proposed windows would prevent passers-by from looking into the unit. [name] acknowledge that the windows would go some way to providing privacy, this would not outweigh the harm to the living conditions of the future occupiers with regards to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the future occupants, with specific regard to private outdoor amenity space, outlook, daylight and sunlight. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of The London Plan, and Policies CDH01 and CDH07 of the London Borough of Barnet Local Plan (2025) (Local Plan), which seek to ensure that new development allows for acceptable levels of daylight, sunlight and outlook for potential occupants, together with providing indoor and outdoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use.

The existing building was approved with conditions in August 2019 (Ref. 19/3649/FUL). One condition imposed secured the ground floor as a community centre. The reason for the condition was to enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise control of the type of use within the category in order to safeguard the amenities of the area. I understand that a community centre previously stood on the site prior to its redevelopment.

Policy CHW01 of the Local Plan sets out 3 criteria that apply where development, including change of use, that involves the loss of existing community facilities or services will be permitted. [name]. a) and B. b) deal with the provision of replacement community facilities, and the loss of facilities as part of a wider public service transformation plan. Given that the proposal is for the change of use from community facilities to residential accommodation, neither criterion B. a) or B. b) apply.

[name]. c) identifies that the loss of existing community facilities will only be permitted if it has been demonstrated that the facility is no longer required in its current use and that it is not fit for purpose or viable for any other forms of community infrastructure for which there is a defined current or future need identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).

A marketing campaign for the sale or let of the unit has been ongoing. It is clear from the evidence before me that the unit was advertised as being available whole or in part, as well as being available for existing community use, or for a change of use. I am conscious that the rent or purchase price of the unit may have been a barrier to prospective occupants. However, the appellant has provided evidence that the unit did not meet the needs of prospective occupants, and I have no substantive evidence before me that the rent or purchase price was a barrier to it being in community use.

As part of the original planning permission (Ref. 19/3649/FUL) the unit should have been fully fitted out at completion and ready for community use. I do not doubt that the appellant would have fitted the unit to the requirements of the occupant should it have been let or sold. However, the marketing information suggests that the unit is a shell, and any incoming tenant or purchaser can customise the space to their requirements. This may have had a bearing on the suitability of the unit for prospective community uses. Nevertheless, given the evidence before me, I find it unlikely that this matter alone would have been a barrier to the unit being occupied for a community use.

The Council has set out the other forms of community infrastructure which is identified in the IDP, which, amongst other things, includes provision of [name] for the [name], flexible work/retail/community spaces, and health and health related services. The evidence provided to me suggests that there was no interest in the organisations identified in the IDP despite the appellant contacting them.

The appellant has demonstrated that the unit is not required for community use in its current form. It has also been demonstrated that no interest was generated from the organisations identified in the IDP. As such, the appellant has satisfied both parts of Policy CHW01 B. c).

The proposal would not harm the provision of community facilities. It is in accordance with Policy S1 of The London Plan (2021), and Policies CHW01 and TOW01 of the Local Plan, which collectively seek to protect community facilities, ensuring that it is demonstrated that the facility is no longer required where development or change of use results in the loss of community facilities.

The proposal would provide an additional unit of residential accommodation, which would respond to an identified need, boosting housing delivery. It would exceed the minimum space standards and would contribute towards the vitality of Barnet town centre. However, these benefits would be balanced against the benefit of the unit being in community use. In any case, this would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the living conditions of the future occupants.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.