Appeal 6004331

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area • the living conditions of surrounding and future occupiers in relation to outlook • highway safety.

The appeal site is a garage block, substation and hardstanding located to the rear of [site address] , a block of flats that fronts [site address] . The site is bounded by rear gardens of Nos. 74, 76, 78 and [address], the communal garden serving [site address] as well as a garage block accessed from [address]. The generous separation distances between the built form on and around the site gives the area a spacious and open character.

The proposed development would provide two new dwellings located very close to one another and with one external wall of each dwelling positioned hard up against the boundary shared with the adjoining garage block. Infill developments of various layouts and scales exist in the wider area. However, what sets these other examples apart from the proposal is the scale, massing and layout of the proposed development within the context of a relatively small site that is exacerbated by large areas of windowless walls. The proposed dwellings, by reason of their scale, massing and layout, would appear as a cramped and bulky form of development in conflict with the spacious character of the area.

For these reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it conflicts with Policy CHD01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2025 (BLP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) which seek, amongst other things, for all new development to be of a high architectural and urban design quality that responds sensitively and positively to local distinctiveness and design, building form, patterns of development, scale, massing and height of the existing context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape.

The site lies at a lower ground level than Nos. 74, 76, 78 and [address]. The length of the rear gardens of these properties provides relief between the rear of the dwellings and the site. At the time of my site visit, tall vegetation stood along the rear boundary of No. [address]. Additionally, there would be approximately 2m between the side wall of the new dwelling closest to the boundary with properties on [address].

The proposed development would introduce built form close to the rear boundaries of these properties on [address]. However, when taking the above factors together, it would not introduce a form of development that would result in an undue loss of outlook to occupiers of Nos. 74, 76 or [address].

However, the proposed kitchen/dining/living room of both dwellings would have glazed sliding doors and the only outlook for these ground floor habitable rooms. The sliding doors would open out onto private amenity spaces serving each dwelling but would be approximately 2m away from boundary treatments for both dwellings. As such, views from the sliding doors for would be impeded.

For the proposed dwelling closest to Nos. 74, 76, 78 and [address], as the ground slopes uphill towards [address], the difference in ground levels would increase the sense of enclosure and reduce levels of sky exposure for this dwelling as the sliding doors face the boundary shared with Nos. 74, 76 and [address]. Bedrooms on the upper floors would all have windows with a single aspect, with the exception of an obscure glazed window in one bedroom of the dwelling on the [address] side of the site. Other opportunities for outlook proposed are limited to roofights. Although views would not be impeded in the same way on the upper floors of the dwellings, the amount of fenestration and the restriction of windows to one aspect compounds the harm to outlook on the ground floor.

Thus, whilst I find no harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, the proposal would harm the living conditions of future occupiers in relation to outlook. It would conflict with BLP Policy CDH01 and LP Policy D3, which amongst various matters, seek for proposals to provide a good standard of amenity and deliver appropriate outlook for potential occupants.

The site is accessed via a single track access route from [site address] that runs alongside the main building. It is unclear in the evidence how and whether parties with specific interest in the site access route or substation were consulted on the planning application. Nevertheless, this route facilitates access for both cars using the garages and hardstanding as well as pedestrians accessing the communal garden and refuse bins. Although the access route facilitates vehicular movements to, from and within the garage block currently, the proposed development would increase the variety of vehicles and would introduce vehicular movements by users who would be unfamiliar with the site and constraints of the access route. Subsequently, the proposed development, when taken together with the existing use of the access by pedestrians, the risk of collisions would increase.

Thus, with the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I must conclude the proposal would harm highway safety. It would therefore conflict with BLP Policy TRC03 and [name] T4 and T6 which seek, amongst other things, appropriate provision for efficient deliveries, servicing and emergency access, for development proposals to reflect and be integrated with current and planned transport access, capacity and connectivity and avoid an increase in road danger.

The proposed development would provide less than the amount of outdoor amenity space sought in the Council’s Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document 2016 (SPD). However, the appellant’s evidence indicates the dwellings would each have four habitable rooms. Based on this assessment, the SPD states that houses should provide 40m2 of outdoor amenity space. The appellant’s statement sets out that the dwellings compensate for the shortfall in outdoor amenity space because the amount of internal accommodation exceeds the space standards and the accessibility of public open spaces nearby. Notwithstanding the provision of outdoor amenity space, the amount of internal accommodation does not outweigh the harms I have identified.

Some representations identify potential for biodiversity and wildlife issues, particularly in relation to effects of the development to trees on and around the site. Issues around land stability, the structural integrity of the garages on the adjacent site, effects of construction (including noise and dust), absence of affordable housing and effects on surrounding neighbours were also raised by representors. However, as the appeal is dismissed for other reasons, it is not necessary to look into these matters further.

The appellant referenced paragraph 125(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to promote and support the development of underutilised land, especially if this would help to meet identified housing need where land supply is constrained. NPPF paragraphs 131 and 135, which seek well-designed places, have also been identified by the appellant. Whilst the proposal may be seeking to deliver two dwelling units on the site, this does not outweigh the requirement to comply with other policies of the development plan.

The Council has referred to LP Policy T6.1 which relates to residential parking; however, this is not determinative to this appeal.

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