Case Reference: 3328066

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 25 March 2024
by C Livingstone MA(SocSci) (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 30 April 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/23/3328066
Peaberry Court, 87 Greyhound Hill, Hendon, Barnet, London NW4 4JE
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision
of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.
• The application Ref is 23/2750/OUT.
• The development proposed is internal alterations to ten existing flats. Front, side and
rear extensions to create fifty one additional self-contained flats. Ground to roof front
extension to main entrance for the provision of a lift. Provision of plant equipment on
the roof. Replacement of existing brick and render facade with new brick and render
facade. Provision of balconies, private and communal amenity areas and associated
cycle storage and refuse. Reallocation of existing car parking spaces in the basement.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. Outline planning permission is sought with access, appearance, layout, and
scale included for consideration at this stage. The matter of landscaping only is
reserved for future consideration. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
3. The second reason for refusal is in relation to the effect on local infrastructure
in the absence of a completed s106 Planning Obligation. In its Statement of
Case, the Council has confirmed that the three relevant elements of local
infrastructure are affordable housing, a carbon offset payment, and ongoing
energy performance monitoring. A signed Unilateral Deed of Planning
Obligation (UU), dated 13 March 2024, has been submitted as part of this
appeal. I return to matters of weight and detail of the UU throughout my
Decision as appropriate.
4. Barnet’s Draft Local Plan is currently at Regulation 18 stage. The policies in
emerging plans do not have the same statutory force as that accorded to
policies in adopted development plans under s38(6) of the 2004 Act. They are
nevertheless material considerations and I return to the emerging Plan as
appropriate throughout my Decision.
Main Issues
5. The main issue is whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the
development proposed having particular regard to the development plan’s
policies relating to tall buildings, including considering the effect of the proposal
upon the character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
Tall building policies
6. The appeal site is within a predominantly residential area, comprising of mainly
two storey properties, although there is a parade of shops and commercial
properties across the road from the appeal site. Peabody Court is a ‘V’ shaped
multi-storey building at the junction of Greyhound Hill and Watford Way (A41)
which is a main route in and out of London. The body of the building is five
storeys, and its height gradually descends to three storeys on the flank
elevation facing Greyhound Hill and four storeys on the flank elevation facing
Watford Way. The ground floor of the building is in retail use as a furniture
shop and the remainder of the building comprises flatted dwellings with
ancillary parking at basement level.
7. The proposed development includes the erection of extensions and alterations
to the building to increase its height to eight storeys, descending to five storeys
on the flank elevation facing Greyhound Hill. The proposal would allow for the
reconfiguration and extension of 10 existing flats as well as 51 additional flats.
The existing ground floor commercial use would be retained and the
commercial frontage as well as the exterior of the building would be replaced
as part of the development.
8. Policy D9 of the London Plan 2021 (LonP) states that development plans should
define what is considered a tall building for specific localities and should
determine if there are locations where tall buildings may be an appropriate
form of development. The policy sets out that tall buildings should only be
developed in locations that are identified as suitable for them.
9. Policy CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document
2012 (CS) defines a tall building as those comprising eight storeys
(or 26 metres) or more in height. A total of eight strategic locations are
identified within the policy, which also stipulates that any tall buildings outside
of these specific locations will not be supported. The appeal site is not within an
identified location.
10. The proposed development would therefore result in a building that is defined
as tall within the local development plan, outwith an area that has been
identified as a location that may be suitable for tall buildings.
Character and appearance
11. Peabody Court is a prominent building at a busy intersection, its height in
relation to neighbouring buildings sets it apart from surrounding development
as there are no neighbouring properties of a similar scale. This is even taking
into consideration the proposed stepped progression in height and a design
aimed at minimising the mass of the built form. The proposal also includes the
replacement of the external facade of the building and the proposed design and
external materials would give the building a contemporary appearance. This
would be an improvement on the existing façade, which would benefit from
being updated. Nevertheless, the proposed building would be significantly taller
and unduly large in comparison to the surrounding built environment.
12. The unique 45 degree façade of the building relates positively to the busy
intersection. Its design coupled with it height sets it apart from surrounding
development as a landmark building, particularly for those travelling along
Watford Way (A41) which is a main route in and out of London. In some views,
large buildings such as buildings within Colindale or the campus of Middlesex
University form a backdrop to views of the appeal site and, in comparison, to
some of the buildings in these areas, Peaberry Court is relatively modest.
However, the distance and also the intervening M1 and A41 form a distinct
separation between the buildings in Colindale and the appeal site. The
landmark status of the building or the appearance of the building within some
long-range views would not ameliorate the harmful effect of the development,
which would result in an overly prominent and incongruous addition to the
street scene.
13. The building would retain an active frontage, would not impact on identified
Local Viewing Corridors, not impact on heritage assets and their setting, or
result in the creation of a microclimatic effect harmful to the public realm. As
such the proposed development is in accordance with the requirements of most
of the criteria listed in Policy DM05 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development
Management Policies) Development Plan Document 2012 (DMP). However, as
the appeal site is outwith an identified strategic location for tall buildings it
would not be in accordance with the overarching principle of this policy. Also
given the resultant buildings overall height and scale it would be a distinct
departure from the existing urban fabric and would therefore conflict with
criterion ii of this policy.
14. My attention has been drawn to an emerging Local Plan and specifically
Policy CDH04 which relates to tall buildings. As this policy may be subject to
modification during the adoption process it is of limited weight.
Notwithstanding this, it appears that, the policy does not explicitly prevent tall
buildings outside of strategic locations. In addition, the other criteria within this
policy are not a distinct departure from the current local plan. I therefore
attach limited weight to Policy CDH04 in my determination of this appeal.
15. A previous scheme for an upward extension to create an eight storey building
at the site was recently dismissed1. This was on the basis that the appeal site
does not provide a suitable location for the development proposal, having
particular regard to the development plan’s policies relating to tall buildings
and the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the
area. The proposed scheme would still result in an eight storey building, albeit
with different articulation and massing. I have assessed this appeal on its own
merits but the Inspector’s decision on the previous scheme is a material
consideration of significant weight.
Overall
16. For the reasons given above, the appeal site is not a suitable location for the
development proposed, having particular regard to the development plan’s
policies relating to tall buildings and that the proposed development would
have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such the
proposal would be contrary to Policies D3 and D9 of the LonP, CS5 of the CS
and DM01 and DM05 of the DMP. In summary, and amongst other things,
these policies state that tall buildings should be developed in locations that are
identified as suitable for them and identify specific criteria that tall buildings
are required to meet including that they successfully integrate into the existing
urban fabric and make a positive contribution to the local townscape. These
1 APP/N5090/W/23/3317453
policies also set out that development proposals should enhance local context
by delivering buildings that respond to local distinctiveness and character.
17. The Council also refers to Policy D1 of the LonP within its first reason for refusal
which is focused on the requirement that Council’s carry out area assessments
as part of their preparation of development plans. They also refer to Policy CS
NPPF of the CS which is an overarching policy relating to the consideration of
development against the requirements of the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework). Both of these policies are not relevant to my
assessment of this appeal and the harm I have identified.
Other Matters
18. I note the recent planning history of the site for the upward extension of the
building to seven storeys2 and a subsequent approval to vary condition 1 of this
approval to allow for amendments to the development3. There would appear to
be a reasonable prospect of the implementation of a previously approved
scheme. Be that as it may, none of the developments that have been
previously approved would result in a building that is eight storeys and meets
the definition of a tall building in the borough. Being larger and taller, the
appeal proposal would also have a greater effect on the character and
appearance of the area.
19. As the appeal proposal is taller it would allow for an increased number of
additional flats when compared to previous schemes for the extension of the
building. As such the appellant asserts that previously approved schemes for
the upward extension of the building to six or seven storeys would be less
viable than the appeal proposal. While there is evidence to support that this
may be the case, this does not present sufficient justification, given the
identified harm and conflict with the development plan.
20. The benefits associated with the renovation of the building does not outweigh
the harm I have identified in relation to other aspects of the design, and I am
not satisfied that the appeal proposal is the only viable mechanism for the
refurbishment of the exterior of the building.
21. The submitted representations in support do not raise any additional matters
that overcome the harm I have identified in the main issues. The relevant
concerns raised within the submitted objections are addressed within my
decision.
Planning Balance
22. The appeal proposal would result in the provision of 51 new energy efficient
homes that would comprise of a mix of tenures and make a valuable
contribution to the housing supply within the Borough. The proposed
development would also redevelop a brownfield site. In so doing, the proposal
would comply with some policies within the development plan. This would
include Policy H1 of the LonP which, amongst other things, encourages the
development of windfall sites in order to increase housing supply. For the same
reasons the proposed development would also be compliant with some advice
within the Framework. I attach significant positive weight to these factors.
2 22/1437/OUT
3 23/4833/S73
23. There are ten flats within Peaberry Court as existing that do not meet the
minimum internal space standards defined within Policy D6 of the LonP. The
proposal includes the reconfiguration and extension of these flats which would
increase their internal floor area to be in accordance with minimum space
standards. This, and alterations to their windows would improve the living
conditions of the occupants of these properties, as would the provision of
community amenity areas. I therefore attach moderate positive weight to these
improvements to the living conditions of existing occupants of the building.
24. The UU secures a review mechanism for affordable housing that may conclude
that a contribution for affordable housing would be required, for which there is
an identified need, resulting in a benefit arising from the development.
However, as this benefit is subject to a review mechanism, such a provision is
not guaranteed. I therefore, attach only very limited weight to the potential
provision of affordable housing.
25. The submission of a payment to offset carbon emissions has been agreed in
accordance with the requirements of SI 2 of the LonP as it was clearly
demonstrated that the zero-carbon target, required for major developments,
cannot be achieved in this instance. As payments received to the Council’s
carbon offset fund would contribute to carbon reduction elsewhere, it would be
beneficial. However, an efficient energy performance rating of the building is a
development plan requirement and a neutral factor in my determination of the
appeal.
26. The proposal would lead to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
contribution. It is not clear from the evidence before me what this CIL
contribution would be, or on what it would be spent for. As such, I cannot be
certain what benefit would derive from a CIL payment. I do not, therefore,
attach any weight to the CIL contribution.
27. The appellant submits that the proposed development would not result in any
harm by reason of, amongst other matters, its mixture of units, its effects upon
the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety implications, its
effects upon flood risk, drainage, and air quality. The new flats which would be
formed would comply with, and even exceed, some building standards,
including in relation to internal and external space. It is also put to me that the
site is within an accessible location and the existing ground floor commercial
units would be retained within the development. However, the absence of harm
in relation to such matters is a neutral factor and weighs neither for nor against
the proposal.
28. The proposal also includes the erection of an extension on the front elevation
which would accommodate a lift which would improve the buildings accessibility
for occupants and visitors to the building. I attach limited weight on
improvements to the accessibility to the building.
29. The benefits of the proposed development are significant. However, in my
assessment of the appeal I have identified that the proposal would result in a
tall building in a location that is not suitable for such a development. The
proposal would fail to integrate with the existing urban fabric and would harm
the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the benefits of the
proposal do not outweigh the harm I have identified, and the proposed
development would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are
no material considerations to indicate a decision otherwise that in accordance
with the development plan.
Conclusion
30. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
C Livingstone
INSPECTOR