Appeal 6004936

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was scheduled to be unaccompanied but in practice I made an internal inspection by courtesy of the Appellant.

The main issues in this case are: i. the effect of the proposed two-storey extension and alterations to the building on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area, in the context of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area (CA); ii. the effect on residential amenity with respect to private amenity space for the two proposed flats and any potential loss of privacy for neighbours; iii. whether the development would result in a loss of an employment site contrary to planning policy; and iv. the lack of a legal agreement with respect to car parking.

The substantial two-storey rear extension would add to the volume and prominence of the appeal building, including when viewed from the adjacent footpath. However, it would be barely visible from [address] and from the side it would be viewed in conjunction with an existing conglomeration of irregularly shaped buildings and rear extensions. Its overall design would be broadly in keeping with the host building and I see no objection to the detailed fenestration or waste and cycle storage provisions.

For these reasons I do not consider that the proposed development would unduly affect the character or appearance of the appeal building or the row of buildings within which it is situated.

I recognise that the site is just within the Monken Hadley Conservation Area (CA), which must by law be preserved in terms of its character and appearance, as a whole. The appeal building and its neighbours fronting [address] are not of especially high quality and do not appear to me to make a major contribution to the CA. In view of my finding regarding the effect of the development on the site itself and the adjacent built group, it follows, in my judgement, that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the [name] as a whole, which would accordingly be preserved as required.

Therefore, the appeal proposal is to be regarded as compliant with the relevant Policies CDH01, CDH05 and CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan (BLP) with respect to the design quality of built extensions and the protection of CAs as heritage assets.

The private amenity space provision for the two proposed flats would be substandard. However, in this highly urban environment the flats might attract occupiers not seeking significant private space and prospective residents would have a choice as to whether the accommodation would be acceptable to them. Moreover, there are local parks and open spaces for air and exercise if required.

So, despite strict non-compliance with adopted space standards, I do not consider that development proposed in this case would undermine the provisions of [name] CDH07 or London Plan Policy D6 with regard to private amenity space.

Nor do I consider that there would be any unacceptable effect on neighbouring amenity, such as loss of privacy by overlooking from the proposed flats. That is especially given the urban context of the site, where a degree of mutual overlooking is to be expected.

Planning Permission for the conversion of the appeal property from commercial employment to residential use was granted in 2015 under [name]/05330/14. It is now disputed between the Council and the Appellant as to whether this permission was ever implemented so as to extinguish employment use.

From my own internal inspection, it is clear that the premises are currently in use as a working office for several people with a range of active work stations. That alone does not amount to irrefutable evidence that the previous permission was never implemented and there is evidence that a related [name] was paid. But, on the other hand, that does not amount to evidence that the residential use was actually commenced. I saw nothing else to indicate that [site address] is not still in established employment use, as asserted by the Council.

I therefore find it necessary to judge this appeal on the basis that the proposed development would result in the loss of an employment unit.

The premises form part of a row of commercial properties within the designated [name], albeit several other units in this Frontage are also in non-retail use. However, given the urban location, it is to be expected that marketing evidence to indicate that the appeal premises are no longer necessary or viable as an employment site would be provided before its loss to employment should be permitted.

No such evidence is provided in this appeal and, without it, the loss of the site to employment would conflict with Policy ECY01 of the BLP to protect town centre employment sites including retaining existing office space.

The Appellant is prepared to provide a requisite planning obligation by legal agreement that occupiers of the proposed flats would not be eligible for residents parking permits in the interests of avoiding exacerbation of existing on-street parking.

On the evidence available, such an undertaking is necessary to achieve compliance with the overall objectives of Policies TRC03 of the BLP and T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan with regard to the management of car parking.

The appropriate legal undertaking has not been received at the date of this decision, as required by public guidance on written representation appeals. This militates against allowing this appeal.

I have found no objection to the design and immediate planning effects of the proposed development in itself. However, the remaining objections regarding the loss of an employment location and car parking management together amount to an overriding case against the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.