Case Reference: 3271077

Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 5 July 2021
Site visit made on 13 July 2021
by Paul Jackson B Arch (Hons) RIBA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 30 September 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/21/3271077
679 High Road, North Finchley, London N12 0DA
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the
London Borough of Barnet.
• The application Ref 20/3823/FUL, dated 5 August 2020, was refused by notice dated
5 March 2021.
• The development proposed is demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of
the site to provide 307 homes in a series of buildings up to nine storeys, car parking,
cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, and associated facilities.
Preliminary matters
1. The Inquiry opened on Monday 5 July and sat for 5 days in virtual format. A
preliminary site visit of the surrounding area was carried out on Tuesday 29
June and an accompanied visit to the site and relevant viewpoints was made on
Tuesday 13 July. Written closing remarks from the Council and the Finchley
Society were received on 9 August 2021 and from the appellant on 13 August.
The Inquiry was closed in writing on 20 August 2021.
2. The Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued on 21 July
2021. The main parties were given the opportunity to incorporate any
comments in their closing submissions and these have been taken into account.
Decision
3. The appeal is dismissed.
Main issues
4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the area. The Council also refused planning permission on the
basis that a S106 Agreement had not been completed covering affordable
housing and other matters. A signed and dated S106 Unilateral Undertaking
(UU) was subsequently submitted which I address later in this decision. A
secondary issue which arose during the course of the appeal relates to whether
the local planning authority can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land,
as required by the NPPF.
The site and surroundings
5. The site of about 1 hectare comprises a former Homebase store with associated
car park. It was built just before the turn of the 21st century on the site of the
1905 North Finchley tram depot, subsequently a trolley bus and bus garage,
which closed in the 1990s. The area around the tram depot was largely built
out with terraced and semidetached dwellings before 1936. Terraced Edwardian
dwellings line Rosemont Avenue on the north side of the site and streets to the
south and west contain mainly semi-detached houses, though Christchurch
Avenue has more recent 4 storey flats facing the site at its eastern end. There
are also later residential terraced houses in Woodberry Grove facing the
western boundary.
6. North Finchley town centre lies to the north of the site and contains 2 notable
and conspicuous tall buildings of 9 storeys (707 High Road, formerly Finchley
House, now Flint Court) and 16 storeys (The Arts Depot, providing a variety of
spaces for drama, dance and visual arts as well as residential) grouped around
the historic road junction where the A598 Ballards Lane diverges from the
A1000 High Road (Great North Road) towards Islington. The 2.5 storey
Finchley Mosque adjoins the site at its north east corner and benefits from
planning permission for a substantial extension mainly on the southern side.
Reasons
Policy background
7. The development plan for the area includes the London Plan of 2021 (LonP)
and the Barnet Core Strategy (CS) and Development Management Policies
(DMP) of September 2012. Barnet’s replacement ‘Local Plan Reg 18 Preferred
Approach’ was approved for consultation on 6 January 2020. Due to its current
stage in the process towards adoption it can only attract limited weight.
8. North Finchley is one of the four priority town centres in the Borough promoted
in the CS as a main focus for commercial investment and residential growth. It
notes that priority town centres are locations for existing tall buildings which
have contributed to their visibility and importance as service centres and places
with high levels of public transport accessibility. Development Management
Policy DM05 – Tall Buildings sets out a criteria-based approach for assessing
proposals for tall buildings and Policy CS5 identifies North Finchley town centre
as a potential location where they may be appropriate. CS policy CS6 seeks to
promote the town centres whilst ensuring that new development is of an
appropriate scale and character for the centre in which it is located.
9. The Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) North Finchley Town Centre
Framework (TCF) of 2018 provides specific guidance on interpreting and
implementing Barnet’s Local Plan policies in supporting the potential for future
growth and to manage anticipated change. In conjunction with this, Barnet’s
Tall Buildings Study (TBS) of 2010 and its subsequent review and update of
2019 (TBSU) provide advice on where tall buildings (defined as 8-14 storeys)
have been developed, where others are planned and the opportunity for new
locations to be identified.
Character and appearance
10. Barnet’s Characterisation Study of 2010 (CSB) is of some age but is a helpful
guide to urban character and local distinctiveness. The existing Homebase
store is designated as ‘box development’ typology, typically of a large scale
with associated car parking and little relationship to surrounding streets. North
Finchley town centre forms a separate typology of older urban fabric with a fine
grain. The boundary of the town centre is set out at figure 4 of the TCF and
excludes the appeal site and Rosemont Avenue to the north. The residential
street primary typology surrounds the appeal site. The town centre boundary is
not adjacent, but just touches the appeal site at the north eastern corner
where shops at 634-636 High Street face the adjoining Finchley Mosque.
11. The primary residential streets typology is subdivided into secondary
typologies. The appellant and the Council are in broad agreement on the
characterisation of the surrounding streets as being ‘urban’ rather than
‘suburban’. However the scale of the proposal is such that it would be seen
from further away. I agree with objectors that large parts of streets to the
south and west of the appeal site (Woodberry Grove and Way, Christchurch
Avenue), designated in the CSB as ‘urban terrace’ mainly consist of semi-
detached houses with hipped roofs and generous rear gardens, largely
indistinguishable from development on the east side of the High Road (such as
Sandringham Gardens, Addington Drive and Kenver Avenue) designated as
‘suburban’ (TCA 1 and TCA 2 in the appellant’s Townscape Study, excepting
Rosemont Avenue). The dividing line between sub-typologies is necessarily
area based and hard to pin down, but the sense of homogeneity that links
contemporary development of much of the area west, south and east of the
tram depot in the early 20th century is clearly perceivable. Post-war
development along the High Road and at the east end of Christchurch Avenue
of greater scale (TCA 4 in the townscape study) does not diminish this.
Moreover, the character of the area is very much influenced by attractive small
scale domestic features and details typical of the ‘suburban’ period such as
carved bargeboards, stained glass, oriel and bay windows and ‘tudor’ gables.
12. On the other hand, there can be no dispute that terraces in Rosemont Avenue
fall in the secondary typology ‘urban terrace’ along with Churchfield Avenue
opposite the Mosque and other streets close to the town centre such as
Lambert Road and Dale Grove. The upshot of this is that the site lies in an area
of broadly homogenous character consistent with mainly low-rise development
of domestic scale. Although on the southern edge of the town centre, the 2 tall
buildings there do not impact to any extent on the dynamic experience of local
occupiers using their gardens and streets, except perhaps where they are
directly in the line of sight, such as from north facing rear gardens in Rosemont
Avenue (about 16-18 dwellings at most) and in views along the High Road and
Ballards Lane looking north. Tall urban development in the town centre is
clearly visible from the appeal site car park but does not form a significant part
of, or contribute in any appreciable way, to the character of the majority of the
residential area around the appeal site. As such the surrounding low to mid-rise
residential area is sensitive to change.
13. In this immediate context, tall buildings as high as 9 storeys would appear
starkly out of keeping, the more so on Christchurch Avenue where the 2 central
9 storey blocks C and D would flank a vehicle access and due to the sloping
ground, would present as nearer 10 storeys with the lower ground car parking
podium level. The visual impact would be only partly relieved by some single
aspect maisonettes and the bulk of the scheme would dominate views from the
street and from dwellings and gardens opposite (Viewpoint 5). The variation in
height of the 5 tallest blocks seen from the High Road and from Woodberry
Grove and the rest of Christchurch Avenue would do little to mitigate for the
overall bulk. Moreover, the limited distance between the blocks would mean
that anyone walking along Christchurch Avenue would have a curtailed
perception of houses and gardens beyond the scheme to the north and limited
opportunity to appreciate the relationship between the scheme and the taller
buildings at the centre of North Finchley, which would be about 170m away.
The lack of visibility of the ‘podium gardens’ from Christchurch Avenue would
further add to the development’s stark appearance.
14. The visual impact of the scheme is graphically illustrated in the Townscape
Study at Figure 5 which, notwithstanding intervening walls and vegetation,
indicates the potential effect on the surrounding low-rise environment and the
skyline. The scheme would be prominent in views along Hutton Grove,
Christchurch Avenue (Viewpoint 6) and Churchfield Avenue outside the context
of the North Finchley town centre group. The increased prominence of the built
form along adjacent streets would not just be local but would be apparent from
a wider area.
15. In Viewpoint 9 of the Townscape Study (Rosemont Avenue), it is apparent that
residents on the south side of the road would directly face the highest 9 storey
elements of the development and residents on the north side would see these
blocks high above over the roofs of those on the south side. In the Townscape
Study assessment of this photomontage, in contrast to others, residents are
not recorded as receptors, despite their dwellings being within about 22-27m of
the 9 storey elevations and their gardens closer. The sections submitted late in
the Inquiry1 also illustrate the degree of change. The wall of the existing
Homebase store is rightly acknowledged as a detractor, but this is at the
western end of the road and the replacement 4/5 storey blocks F and G would
represent an improvement in townscape terms, at the cost of some loss of
winter sunlight for the occupiers of Nos. 34-40.
16. Finchley House is about 29m away from the nearest dwelling in Rosemont
Avenue and that is the 5 storey element. The 9 storey part is indirectly viewed
from houses but is visible above the roofs from the footway. It does not unduly
impact on the fine grain character of Rosemont Avenue but lies in the
background. In stark contrast, blocks B, C and D of the appeal scheme would
be overbearing and would overwhelm the scale and grain of Rosemont Avenue
along most of its length. They would be constantly visible on passing along the
road. They would not be seen in the context of the tall buildings in the centre
but would represent a fundamental change of character in a completely
different direction. The repetitive fenestration of these blocks would make the
massing more prominent. Even taking into account the improvement at the
western end, the significance of the visual effect would represent a moderate-
major level of harm.
17. Turning to tall buildings guidance, 7 ‘clusters’ of varying height are identified in
the TBSU at pages 38/39 within the historic ‘corridor’ along the Great North
Road passing through the Borough. North Finchley and Whetstone are
1 Inquiry Doc 9, CD 9.1
identified as suitable for tall buildings of 8-14 storeys, based on the character
of the area, proximity to town centres and public transport accessibility. The
appeal scheme would fall within the elliptical line on the plan, but would be
visually distinct from the Arts Centre and Finchley House group at the centre of
North Finchley. The site does not fall within any of the 3 Key Opportunity Sites
identified in the TCF as suitable for sensitively designed tall buildings and
referenced in the TBSU. Additionally, they would be seen as a compact group of
parallel slabs with substantial combined bulk, very different from the existing
tall buildings. As such they would not respond well to the existing grain of the
town centre or be well integrated with the predominantly low to mid-rise
pattern in the area.
18. LonP policy D3 requires optimisation of site capacity through a design-led
approach whilst ‘enhancing local context by delivering buildings and spaces
that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation,
scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street
hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions’ and responding to ‘the
existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and
characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise
the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local
character’ amongst other things. These aims are in concert with LP policies and
the objectives for good design set out in the National Design Guide (NDG).
19. LonP policy D9 on tall buildings sets out criteria to be considered including C
(1) ii which notes that ‘mid-range views from the surrounding neighbourhood –
particular attention should be paid to the form and proportions of the building.
It should make a positive contribution to the local townscape in terms of
legibility, proportions and materiality’ and iii: ‘Where the edges of the site are
adjacent to buildings of significantly lower height or parks and other open
spaces there should be an appropriate transition in scale between the tall
building and its surrounding context to protect amenity or privacy’. The LonP
further defines optimisation as ‘coordinating the layout of the development with
the form and scale of the buildings and the location of the different land
uses….’ Paragraph 3.3.7 explains that development should be designed to
respond to the special characteristics of the distinctive features of a place
which can include: predominant architectural styles and/or building materials;
architectural rhythm; distribution of building forms and heights. The proposed
development responds poorly to the prevailing scale and grain of the
surroundings, overemphasises the contribution made to character by tall
buildings in the town centre and underplays the effect of the proposal in terms
of height and bulk. Positive impacts of the proposal on the High Road and at
the western end of the scheme are seriously undermined by the overpowering
visual impact of the higher blocks which would have limited space between
them, creating an impression of unredeemed mass, quite out of place in an
area of fine grain low to mid-rise residential development.
20. The Finchley Society refer to the reduction in daylight and sunlight, particularly
in winter, that would be experienced by occupiers of properties in Rosemont
Avenue, mainly due to the height of blocks B and C. The appellant
acknowledges that the effects would exceed the BRE guidelines in some cases
but points out that in the context of the appeal site, currently comprising a low-
rise retail unit and a large open car park in a brownfield location in an urban
area, such consequences are to be expected. The NPPF expects a flexible
approach which does not inhibit making efficient use of a site. Whilst the
resulting living standards in Rosemont Avenue would not be unacceptable
following this line of guidance, they would represent a significant and
noticeable deterioration in amenity which would be out of character in any
low/mid-rise residential area outside a town centre and would represent a
dramatic change here. Furthermore, paragraph 71 of the NDG indicates that
proposals for tall buildings require special consideration. It has not been
explained why it has not been possible to optimise density whilst at the same
time better resolving this environmental impact. The effect on daylight and
sunlight on occupiers of south facing houses and gardens adds weight to the
suggestion that the scheme would be too high and bulky.
21. Turning to separation between the proposed blocks, there are instances where
flats would face each other across a distance of less than the minimum
standard of 18-21 metres set by the Mayor of London in the 2016 Housing
SPG; and in most cases less than the Council’s minimum standard of about
21m. Projecting balconies further reduce the distance between opposing units.
Staggering the living areas of flats is no answer to the difficulty of avoiding a
direct view into bedrooms, which are habitable rooms. Many flats would be
single aspect in practice (I give little weight to the idea that a side window onto
an adjacent balcony works to provide a ‘dual aspect’) and many future
residents would only have a view of other people’s windows to contemplate,
especially from deeper within a unit. There would be a clear perception of
overlooking if not an obvious invasion of privacy in some cases, based on the
minimum standards in policy guidance. Again, whilst not necessarily
unacceptable in adopting a ‘flexible’ approach, the consequences of the balance
struck to achieve optimisation would be a demonstrably poor outcome in terms
of living conditions and character and appearance.
22. The lack of any significant articulation in the fenestration of the highest blocks
beyond projecting or recessed balconies (the ‘mansard’ upper level having
been omitted in design development) would not help to relieve the unremitting
and repetitive appearance of these elements. In contrast, the 4, 5 and 6 storey
blocks facing the High Road, Woodberry Grove and Rosemont Avenue would be
significantly more sympathetic in scale to the surroundings, helped by gable
ends, proportionate detailing of brickwork panels and an active street scene.
23. The SPD area extends beyond the town centre boundary ‘in order to facilitate
and support the regeneration of the town centre’. The southern and northern
gateways are indicated to be important elements in securing the town centre’s
future improvement and the southern ‘gateway’ includes the appeal site and
residential development in Rosemont Avenue. However the town centre
boundary is drawn carefully around the rear of Finchley House, now Flint Court,
coinciding with the back gardens in Rosemont Avenue, which is where there is
a strong sense of character change. The TCF acknowledges this at paragraph
6.29, where scale and massing advice for Key Opportunity Site 3 (Finchley
House) suggests a tiered building decreasing in height towards south and west
where there is existing residential. Whilst the TCF identifies potential for public
realm and gateway improvements as well as intensification on the edge of the
town centre, the site does not fall into any of the Key Opportunity Sites,
locations where tall buildings could be appropriate. Even in the KOS areas, the
TCF emphasises the importance of respecting height, scale and surrounding
context and the need to transition sensitively. The combination of intensively
developed blocks of 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 storeys with a prominent podium would
present a strongly discordant element. It would not integrate well with the
existing urban fabric and would not, except in two distinct locations, add to the
overall quality or be sympathetic to the character of the area.
24. To summarise, the minimal space between flats (at the limit of acceptability
according to the Mayor’s 2016 Housing SPD at paragraph 2.3.36) the flexible
interpretation of ‘dual aspect’ (essentially a bay window, and still difficult to
ventilate naturally) the long internal corridors necessary to achieve the
development potential desired, the screening necessary to prevent overlooking
between flats and the poor ground level ‘dead’ façade of the higher blocks,
comprising mostly bin stores, plant rooms and cycle stores facing the central
pedestrian walkway all combine to reinforce the impression of a very high level
of density that would be unacceptably out of character.
25. The NDG advises that a well-designed place comes about through making the
right choices at all levels, including, inter alia, the form and scale of buildings.
It says (paraphrasing from paragraph 43) that ‘well-designed new development
is integrated into its wider surroundings, physically, socially and visually. It is
carefully sited and designed, and is demonstrably based on an understanding
of the existing situation, including… patterns of built form, to inform the layout,
grain, form and scale; the architecture prevalent in the area, including the local
vernacular and other precedents that contribute to local character, to inform
the form, scale, appearance, details and materials of new development….’ It
has not been shown that the appeal scheme meets these important criteria
which support one of the overarching objectives of the NPPF which is to foster
well-designed, beautiful and safe places.
26. In conclusion, the development would conflict with the townscape and design
quality aims of LonP policies D3 and D9, CS policy CS05, and DMP policies
DM01 and DM05, as well as emerging polices and relevant guidance in the
NPPF and NDG.
Housing land supply
27. The LonP requirement over 5 years is 11820 dwellings. The parties are agreed
that the overall 5 year requirement is 14321 dwellings, taking into account
previous shortfalls and the applicable buffer. The extent of the shortfall in the
last plan period between 2016/6 and 2019/20 amounted to 1199 dwellings.
The delivery of affordable housing has fallen and is significantly below target2.
28. The Council currently claims it can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply
(5YRHLS) of 14888 dwellings, equivalent to 5.2 years supply, a decline from
5.3 years according to the figures presented in evidence at the start of the
Inquiry. The difference between 5.2 and 5 years amounts to around 568 new
dwellings. The appellant assesses the supply position at 4.06 years at best.
29. The NPPF advises at Annex 2 that to be considered deliverable, sites for
housing should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now,
and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the
site within five years. I accept that about 12173 dwellings of the Council’s
supply benefit from an extant planning permission or prior approval and that
these are deliverable within 3 or 5 years, according to the NPPF definition,
amounting to about 85% of the requirement. I do not accept, on the balance of
probabilities, the appellant’s position that predicted rates of delivery at
2 29% of its strategic target in the last 3 monitoring years (GLA Planning Report GLA/6640/S2 CD7.4)
category ‘A’ sites Millbrook Park or the Peel Centre, given that they are ongoing
apartment projects by major developers, are likely to fall as low as predicted
by the appellant, even though these are higher than are typical for
developments in neighbouring boroughs. I find the Council’s assessment of 368
dwellings per annum (dpa) on small sites as somewhat optimistic, given the
number of completions between 2012 and 2017 falling as low as 221 dpa.
Choosing any fixed period carries the risk of distortion, but on balance I find
the appellant’s suggestion of a 10 year average to be compelling, given that
the average for the last 3 years was 391 dpa and recognition that small sites
vary with economic cycles. This results in a deduction of 179 dwellings from
the 5YRHLS.
30. It was not appropriate to carry out an in-depth site analysis during the Inquiry,
which relied on a ‘round-table’ session for this issue and confined the
discussion to general principles and typical examples. The parties co-operated
in preparing a discreet statement of common ground which together with
detailed rebuttal proofs, provided the opportunity for concessions and
refinement of the picture.
31. The majority of the remaining developments relied on by the Council (2715
units) are challenged by the appellant. Many of these sites only have outline
planning permission or are identified in the emerging Local Plan which has just
completed consultation and is at ‘Reg 19’ stage and no planning application has
yet been made. On some sites, planning permission has lapsed and there can
be little certainty in terms deliverability. At Whalebones Park (149 units) for
instance, the Council refused permission and an appeal (undefended except on
S106 grounds) is in progress. It is unclear that all of the dwellings claimed
would be delivered within the plan period.
32. Importantly, 3 major sites planned for delivery of around 927 dwellings within
the plan period present particular difficulties in terms of clear evidence. The
Army Reserve Depot may be promoted by the MoD and on an edge of town
centre location but is a Reg 19 site and remains occupied by the MoD. No
application for planning permission has been made and it does not clearly meet
the criteria for deliverability. At 811 High Road and Finchley House (north of
the appeal site) 334 (or 335) the buildings are currently occupied, or in the
case of Finchley House, already converted to residential use under permitted
development rights. A development partner has withdrawn due to land
ownership issues and the ongoing effects of the pandemic and whilst a new
partner is on board, there must be a degree of caution regarding the
anticipated level of completions. The appellant also draws attention to
Broadway Retail Park where at the time of the Inquiry, no decision had been
made on a long-standing application for outline planning permission for 400
homes. The site is currently a functioning retail park and subject to significant
objections. Delivery is in any case programmed for towards the end of the plan
period. No appreciable reliance can currently be attached to this significant site.
33. Of the remaining sites in dispute, I find as follows (numbers refer to Council
reference):
18. Edgware Hospital:86 units, application submitted: no restrictions:
reasonable prospect.
193. West Hendon Estate: 81 units: delivery ongoing by Barratt: reasonable
prospect.
203. Finchley Memorial Hospital: 130 units: resolution to grant consent:
evidence of delivery: reasonable prospect.
11. Church Farm Leisure Centre: 12 units: vacant site, being marketed: no
constraints: reasonable prospect.
59. East Barnet Library: 12 units: vacant: no constraints: reasonable prospect.
72. Bobath Centre: 25 units: evidence from developer aiming for completion
2023: reasonable prospect.
74. East Finchley substation: 23 units: derelict brownfield site: reasonable
prospect.
110. Brentmead Close: 46 units: evidence from TfL: reasonable within 5 years:
temporary occupation by synagogue: reasonable prospect this will come
forward.
117,119,121,124. Hendon Hub: 189 units: G L Hearn confirm planning
applications expected summer 2021: reasonable prospect.
165. Woodside Park Station: 95 units: brownfield site: 5 year timeframe
realistic: reasonable prospect.
200. Former Barnet Mortuary: 20 dwellings: site owned by developer but no
consultation: No certainty of delivery for housing.
115. Land adjacent Northway and Fairway Primary School: 120 units: lapsed
planning permission: No further assurances: reasons for lapsed consent
uncertain: Beechwood Avenue reputation not a reliable indicator: no firm
commitment.
156. Kingmaker House: 61 units: works commenced under prior approval and
permission granted for rear extension: reasonable prospect.
162. Barnet House: 139 units: evidence of immediate application and previous
prior approval of conversion of former Council premises: reasonable prospect.
181. Central House: 48 units: lapsed prior approval: uncertain reasons: no
certainty of delivery.
34. Of the above, and adding Whalebones Park, 337 dwellings are considered not
to show a reasonable prospect of delivery. Adding these to the 927 dwellings
referred to in the previous paragraph 31 above indicates that 1264 units should
be removed from the Council’s figure of 14709 units (adjusted above for small
sites, paragraph 30) resulting in a supply of 13445 units, equivalent to 93.8%
of the requirement or about 4.7 years.
35. A degree of uncertainty always attaches to delivery from any development site.
However, the difficulties associated with those sites highlighted above indicate
that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not provided clear evidence
that there is a realistic prospect of sufficient completions occurring within 5
years in order to meet its 5YRHLS requirement. Its most recent record on
completions does not inspire confidence. Whilst the 5YRHLS shortfall is not as
serious as the appellant suggests, it remains significant. The appeal proposal
represents a appreciable contribution which moreover provides affordable
housing where the Council has a particular need.
Other matters
36. A S106 UU has been provided with the objectives of providing various benefits
including affordable housing and viability review, a Travel Plan, a car club, car
free development with associated Traffic Management Order contribution,
highway works, a carbon offset payment, measures to mitigate for any effects
on TV reception and commitments to use reasonable endeavours to use local
labour and suppliers. I consider that the provisions of the S106 are directly
related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and
kind, and would be necessary to make it acceptable. They meet the tests set
out in Paragraph 57 of the NPPF and Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations
(2010). I conclude that the requirements of Regulation 123 and Planning
Policy Guidance (PPG) have also been satisfied. Were I otherwise minded to
allow the appeal, the S106 would attract significant weight.
37. The retail unit (Topps Tiles) on the corner of Christchurch Avenue and the High
Road is a locally listed (non-statutory) building. The prominent position of this
building on a corner indicates that its heritage significance would remain easily
appreciated and would not be significantly affected by the appeal proposal.
38. I have had regard to the submissions regarding the effect on users of the
mosque extension in terms of privacy and the impact in terms of character and
appearance. Whilst the mosque extension would be lower and smaller in scale
than block A of the proposal, it would remain architecturally distinctive because
of its form and purpose. There would be no unacceptable effect on its character
and the introduction of higher buildings in this part of the High Road would be
appropriate. Windows in the flank wall of nearby blocks would mainly be to
kitchens and secondary living room windows and would be far enough away
from the mosque to avoid an unacceptable impact on privacy.
Conclusion
39. Residential use would be entirely appropriate on this site lying close to a town
centre. The gateway to the town centre would be appropriately marked along
the High Road with a 6 storey block next to the new mosque extension. The
element towards the end of Rosemont Avenue would relate positively to the
street scene and would not be unacceptably out of scale in the area. The
addition of 307 new dwellings would make a significant contribution to meeting
housing need in Barnet including much needed affordable units3 and this
attracts very significant weight. The redevelopment for housing for a brownfield
site that would enhance the viability and vitality of North Finchley also attracts
weight, though benefit would also occur with a less dense scheme. The new
housing would be reasonably well served by public transport and would be
close to a town centre and local facilities. Limited weight also attaches to CIL
payments, the New Homes Bonus and construction employment.
40. However, the design of the scheme under-estimates the sensitivity to change
of the largely homogenous low/mid-rise urban terrace and suburban areas
around it. In this respect the site is not comparable to the site referred to in
the Tesco New Malden decision4. The overall degree of change would be
medium/high but there would be very high impacts caused by, in particular,
the 8 and 9 storey blocks seen from Rosemont Avenue and from Christchurch
3 35% by habitable room
4 APP/T5720/W/20/3250440
Avenue and other places. A high to moderate level of harm would result. The
combination of barely acceptable distances between flats facing each other, the
need for some privacy screens and obscured glazing, the internal corridors, the
lack of effective natural cross-ventilation in many flats, the acknowledgement
of appreciable detrimental effects on the amount of daylight and sunlight
received by occupiers in Rosemont Avenue, and the poor quality of experience
for those using the main shared pedestrian access through the site, all support
the contention that the scheme is intended firstly to maximise dwelling
capacity. Whilst that may often be an appropriate aim, it cannot be justified at
the cost of an unacceptable level of harm to the character and appearance of
the surrounding area, which would pertain for many years. National and local
development plan policy at all levels emphasises the need to respond to a site’s
context and to respect local distinctiveness. At the Inquiry, it was suggested
that the character of the surrounding residential streets had been taken into
account as a constraint but the appellant failed to offer persuasive justification
for the approach which led to the solution adopted. In particular, the identified
potential for height took insufficient account of the ‘sensitive residential
adjacencies’ at Rosemont Avenue and failed to address local concerns on
density and height firmly expressed in consultation. The scheme fails overall to
provide a form, scale and massing solution that would integrate successfully
into its surroundings. Change is inevitable- but the tallest blocks in this scheme
would be a step too far.
41. It has not been convincingly demonstrated that Barnet has a 5 year supply of
housing land. Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF says that when the policies which
are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission
should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in
the NPPF taken as a whole. The significant shortfall in affordable housing
completions is also relevant to the overall planning balance. The Government
has stated that the design quality of new development is too often mediocre
and that systemic change is needed to ensure design and beauty is a core part
of the planning process. The NDG and reforms to the NPPF further place
emphasis on granting permission for well-designed buildings and refusing it for
poor quality schemes. The NPPF advises that it is especially important that
where there is a shortage of land, developments make efficient use of land and
avoid homes being built at low densities, making optimal use of the potential
for sites. It is also necessary to ensure that beautiful and sustainable places
are created, and the NPPF notes the importance of area-based character
assessments in pursuing this goal. The appeal proposal maximises the potential
for densification and in doing so fails to respond appropriately to the Council’s
own character assessment or up-to-date guidance in the TCF and the TBSU.
The detrimental effect on townscape character of the tallest blocks B, C and D
would be so great as to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
the scheme would bring.
42. For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.
Paul Jackson
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Edward Grant Of Counsel
He called
Phillip Hughes BA (Hons) PHD Chartered Town Planners
MRTPI FRGS Dip Man MCMI
Hardeep Ryatt BA (Hons) Principal Planning Officer
DipTP MRTPI
James Gummery BSc Principal Planning Policy Officer
(Hons) MA MRTPI
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Douglas Edwards Queens Counsel
He called
Simon Bacon BA (Hons) TP Bennett
BArch
Colin Pullan BA (Hons) DipUD Lambert Smith Hampton
Jon Murch MATCP MRTPI DaviesMurch
Matthew Harris Point2
FOR THE FINCHLEY SOCIETY:
Jeffrey Borinsky
Mary Hogben
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Cllr Ross Houston Ward Councillor
Ruth Slavid Local resident
Stephen Aleck Local resident
Cllr Geoffrey Cooke Adjoining Ward Councillor
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
1 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/20/3248960- Woodlands Nursing
Home
2 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/W/20/3250440- New Malden
3 Agreed Table of Housing Land Supply sites version 3
4 TV reception impact assessment & Satellite signal shadow zones
(CD9.6 & 9.6A)
5 Written reps from M Maleknia
6 Note on Urban Design Input dated 2 Oct 2020, provided by the
appellant (CD7.6)
7 Written reps from S Uddin
8 Finchley Society response to CD 9.6 & 9.6A
9 Section drawings through Rosemont Avenue D6304 and D6306
with note
10 Comments from Simon Bacon on CD 7.6
11 ‘Site Layout planning for daylight and sunlight – a guide to good
practice’ (Second Edition, 2011)
12 Note on Victoria Park play space, provided by the Council
Core Documents List
1. National Documents
1.1 NPPF
1.2 PPG
1.3 National Design Guide – October 2019
1.4 DCLG: Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standard
March 2015
2. GLA Documents
2.1 London Plan
2.2 GLA Guidance on Preparing Energy Assessments – 2018
2.3 London Environment Strategy – 2018
2.4 Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy – 2010
2.5 Mayor's SPG - Housing 2016
2.6 Mayor’s SPG – Sustainable Design and Construction 2014
2.7 Mayor’s SPG – Character and Context 2014
2.8 Mayor’s SPG – Affordable Housing and Viability 2017
2.9 Mayor’s SPG – Play and Informal Recreation 2012
2.10 The 2017 London Strategic Housing Market Assessment
3. LB Barnet Documents
3.1 Lb Barnet Core Strategy 2012
3.2 Lb Barnet Development Management Policies
3.3 Lb Barnet Draft Local Plan (Reg 18) January 2018
3.4 North Finchley Town Centre Framework SPD, February 2018
3.5 Planning Obligations SPD, April 2013
3.6 Delivering Skills, Employment, Enterprise and Training from Development
Through S106, SPD, October 2014
3.7 Sustainable Design and Construction, October 2016
3.8 Residential Design Guidance, October 2016
3.9 Tall Buildings Study of London Borough of Barnet, November 2010
3.10 Tall Buildings Update, December 2019
3.11 GLA: Character and Context SPG 2014
3.12 2010 Characterisation Study of London Borough of Barnet
3.12 ditto A
3.12 ditto B
3.12 ditto C
3.13 Barnet Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)
4. Other
4.1 West London Strategic Housing Market Assessment Report of Findings October
2018
4.2 Tesco New Malden Decision
4.3 North London Business Park Inspectors Report
4.4 Note on Urban Design Input
4.5 Matthew Harris BSc - Point 2 Surveyors Limited Qualifications and Experience
4.6 Supplementary Summary Note on Site Context and use of Alternative Daylight
Targets
5. Appeal Documents
5.1 Appellant Statement of Case
5.2 Council Statement of Case
5.3 Finchley Society Statement of Case
5.4 Statement of Common Ground
Council Documents
5.5 Mr. P. Hughes Evidence
5.6 Mr. H Ryatt Evidence
5.6a Mr. H Ryatt Evidence Appendix
5.6b Mr. H Ryatt Evidence Appendix
5.6c Mr. H Ryatt Summary Evidence
5.7 Mr. J. Gummery 5 Year Land Supply POE
5.7a Mr. J Gummery Appendix A
5.7b Mr. J. Gummery Appendix B
5.7c Mr. J. Gummery Appendix C
5.7d Mr. J. Gummery Appendix I
5.8 Mr. J. Gummery Rebuttal 5 Year Land Supply
5.8a Mr. J Gummer Rebuttal 5 Year Land Supply
5.8b Mr. J. Gummery Appendix N
5.8c Mr. J. Gummery Appendix N
5.8c Call for Sites Form - Barnet House
5.8c Call for Sites Response Form - Whalebone Park 08.06.15
5.8c Finchley Church Tc Strategy 2012
5.8c Head of CD Estates Email
5.8c Hendon Hub Email
5.8c Housing & Growth Committee 14 June 2021 Northway - Fairway Proposed
Approach to Site Disposal
5.8c Kingmaker House 19_5403_Ful Officer Report
5.8c Tfl Cd Reps on Barnet Reg 18 Local Plan
5.8c West Hendon RMA Approvals
Finchley Society Documents
5.9 A-Q The Finchley Society Statement of Case:
Appellant Documents
5.10 Architectural Presentation
5.10a Architects Proof of Evidence
5.10b Appendices to Architects Proof of Evidence
5.11 TPB Architects Rebuttals
5.11a TPB Architects Rebuttal Appendices
5.12 Pullan 679 High Road North Finchley Poe
5.12a Pullan 679 High Road North Finchley Figures
5.13 Pullan 679 High Road North Finchley Summary
5.14 Pullan 679 High Road North Finchley Rebuttal Evidence
5.15 679 High Road Appellant Planning Proof of Evidence
5.15a 679 High Road Appellant Planning Evidence Appendix
5.15b Appendix 7 Appellant Planning Proof
5.16 679 High Road Appellant Summary Planning Proof
5.17 679 High Road Jon Murch Rebuttal Proof
5.17a 679 High Road Jon Murch Rebuttal Proof Appendices
6. Five Year Housing Supply Documents
6.1 Lb Barnet Five-Year Land Supply Summary Statement and Table 11th May
2021
6.2 Lb Barnet Housing Trajectory Spreadsheet
6.3 Authorities Monitoring Report 2018/19.
6.4 Agreed Table Of 5yls Housing Sites
Cd6.5
7. Consultation Responses
7.1 Planning Officers Reportto Committee
7.2 Planning Officers Report to Committee Addendum
7.3 GLA Stage 1 Response
7.4 GLA Stage 2 Response
7.5 TFL Response Dated 28th October 2020
7.6 Lb Barnet Urban Design Comments 2nd October 2010
7.7 Letter from Historic England Dated 25th August 2020
7.8 Email from Lb Barnet’s Affordable Housing Co-Ordinator Dated 26th October
2020
8. Core Application Documents
8.1 A-F Design and Access Statement, July 2020:
8.2 A-D Townscape and Visual Appraisal July 2020
8.3 Town Planning Statement, July 2020
8.4 July 2020 CGI Pack
8.5 Transport Assessment July 2020
8.6 A-D Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment July 2020
8.7 Built Heritage Statement July 2020
8.8 A Landscape Design and Access Statement July 2020
8.8 ditto B
8.9 Schedule of Accommodation
8.10 Statement of Community Involvement
9. Application Amendment Documents
9.1 A Updated Drawing Pack:
9.1 B
9.1 H
9.1 N
9.1 C
9.1 I
9.1 O
9.1 D
9.1 J
9.1 P
9.1 E
9.1 K
9.1 Q
9.1 F
9.1 L
9.1 R
9.1 G
9.1 M
9.1 S
9.1 T
Cd9.1u Note on Proposed Sections
Cd9.1v E1244d6304
Cd9.1w E1244d6306
9.2 CGI
9.3 Circular Economy Statement
9.4 Fire Statement for Planning Application
9.5 Wind Desktop Assessment
Cd9.6 Television Reception Impact Assessment
Cd9.6a Television Reception Impact Assessment Map
10. S106 Legal Agreement
10.1 S106 CIL Compliance Statement
10.2 Draft S106 Agreement
10.2 A Location Plan
10.2 B Car Club Plan
10.2 C High Road Highway Work Options
10.2 D Satellite Signal Shadow Zones