MEETING

PLANNING COMMITTEE A DATE AND TIME

TUESDAY 10TH NOVEMBER, 2020

AT 7.00 PM VENUE

VIRTUAL LINK TO VIRTUAL MEETING https://bit.ly/3mNFJg3

TO: MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMITTEE A (Quorum 3)

Chairman: Councillor Eva Greenspan Vice Chairman: Councillor Helene Richman BA (Engineering), JD (Juris Doctor), Barrister (Middle Temple), TEP

Cllr Richard Cornelius Cllr Tim Roberts Cllr Elliot Simberg Cllr Danny Rich Cllr Gill Sargeant

Substitute Members

Paul Edwards Cllr Kath McGuirk Cllr Shimon Ryde Cllr Mark Shooter Cllr Thomas Smith Cllr Reuben Thompstone Cllr Zakia Zubairi

You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached.

Andrew Charlwood – Head of Governance

Governance Service contact: [email protected]

Media Relations Contact: Tristan Garrick 020 8359 2454

ASSURANCE GROUP

Please consider the environment before printing.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Item No Title of Report Pages 1. Minutes of the last meeting

2. Absence of Members

3. Disclosure of Members Pecuniary and other interests

4. Report of the Monitoring Office (if any)

5. Addendum (if applicable)

Hampstead Garden Suburb

6. 18 Sutcliffe Close, London NW11 6NT - TPP/0218/19GS 5 - 18

East Finchley

7. 34 Pulham Avenue London N2 0LR - 20/2747/FUL 19 - 34

Edgware

8. 68 Francklyn Gardens Edgware HA8 8RZ - 20/3262/RCU 35 - 44

9. 49 Francklyn Gardens Edgware HA8 8RU - 20/3857/HSE 45 - 54

10. Any item(s) that the Chairman decides are urgent

This page is intentionally left blank

AGENDA ITEM 6

COMMITTEE REPORT

LOCATION: 18 Sutcliffe Close, London NW11 6NT

REFERENCE: TPP/0218/19 Received: 29 January 2020 WARD: GS Expiry: 25 March 2020 CONSERVATION AREA Hampstead Garden Suburb

APPLICANT: Mr John Dodds

PROPOSAL: 1 x Oak (applicant’s ref. T1) – Reduce crown by 4m – 5m all round. T14 of Tree Preservation Order

RECOMMENDATION:

That Members of the Planning Committee REFUSE CONSENT for the proposed crown reduction by 4m – 5m all round of 1 x Oak (applicant’s ref T1), T14 of Tree Preservation Order for the following reason:

The proposed treatment detrimentally affects the health and appearance of the tree of special amenity value, fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area, and is not justified as a remedy for the alleged subsidence damage on the basis of the information provided.

Consultations

Date of Site Notice: 13th February 2020

Consultees: None

Representations received: None

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Relevant Recent Planning History: C11333A/05/TRE – 1 x Oak – 10% Reduction in density. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 18th July 2005

TCA/00463/09/F – 1 x Apple – Fell. - Six week notification period expired 8th October 2009

1 5 TPO/00462/09/F – 1 x Oak – Crown Clean, Remove Limb Growing over Number 16 as Specified, Thin by 20% as Specified, Reduce Limbs Growing Towards Number 16 by 2m. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Refused 21st October 2009

TPO/00179/10/F – 1 x Oak – Crown Clean, Thin by 20% as Specified, Tip back property side laterals by 2m. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 20th May 2010

TPP/00468/15 – 1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Crown thin by 20% including removal of deadwood, lifting of low branches and shortening of branches encroaching towards house. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 1st September 2015

TPP/0375/20 – 1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Cut roots as necessary to install root barrier to rear of the property in accordance with Optera Structural Solutions Arboricultural Method Statement. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 3rd July 2020

PLANNING APPRAISAL

1. Introduction The applicant initially submitted an application form, sketch plan, arboricultural report, drainage report and soil testing on 28th March 2019 via the Planning Portal. However, insufficient information was provided to allow validation of the application and there ensued considerable discussion and correspondence with both the applicant and his subsequently appointed agent (representing Direct Group / Davies Property Solutions) as to what clarification and additional information was required.

It should be noted that if 'subsidence' is cited as a reason for proposed treatment of tree(s) included in a Tree Preservation Order, it is necessary to submit specified supporting documentary evidence: - the application form stating: "For works to trees covered by a TPO Please indicate whether the reasons for carrying out the proposed works include any of the following. If so, your application must be accompanied by the necessary evidence to support your proposals. (See guidance notes for further details)...... If YES, you are required to provide for: .... Subsidence A report by an engineer or surveyor, to include a description of damage, vegetation, monitoring data, soil, roots and repair proposals. Also a report from an arboriculturist to support the tree work proposals." - the associated guidance clarifying: "Reports should be provided by a structural engineer and/or a chartered surveyor and be supported by technical analysis from other experts (ie for root and soil analysis). These reports must include the following information: * A description of the property, including a description of the damage and the crack pattern, the date that the damage first occurred/was noted, details of any previous underpinning or building work, the geological strata for the site identified from the geological map. * Details of vegetation in the vicinity and its management since discovery of the damage. Include a plan showing the vegetation and affected building.

2 6 * Measurement of the extent and distribution of vertical movement using level monitoring. Where level monitoring is not possible, state why and provide crack- monitoring data. Data provided must be sufficient to show a pattern of movement consistent with the presence of the implicated tree(s). * A profile of a trial/bore hole dug to identify foundation type and depth and soil characteristics. * The sub-soil characteristics including soil type (particularly that on which the foundations rest), liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index. * The location and identification of roots found. Where identification is inconclusive, DNA testing should be carried out. * Proposals and estimated costs of options to repair the damage. In addition, you must include a report from an arboriculturalist to support the tree work proposals, including arboricultural options for avoidance or remediation of indirect tree-related damage.”

There was significant delay in the requisite supporting information being provided. Initially incomplete, the application was validated on 29th January 2020 following receipt of clarification and the relevant additional information.

There followed subsequent delay thereafter in formal consideration of the application because of site visiting constraints imposed as a result of Covid 19.

The applicant said that arrangements had been made to board up the ground floor windows and glass doors at the back of the house in August 2019 (5 months prior to validation of the application), on the advice of his builder because of fears of the glass shattering and leaving the house vulnerable in the absence of the residents. However, during the site visit he confirmed that, with the onset of Covid restrictions, the boarding was removed as the house was continually occupied. He also clarified that early cracking had been filled due to concerns about possible entry of insects etc.

As discussed in more detail in the main body below, subsequent to the validation of the application subject of this report, during the period when site visiting was precluded by Council adopted protocols based on Government Guidance and following extensive correspondence between the applicant; agent; Ward Members; Case Officer; and the Service Director – Planning and Building Control, an e-mail was received from James Reeves, Regional Technical Manager, Davies Subsidence and Surveying (as representative for the agent for TPP/0218/19) stating "As a result, should you not be able to give planning consent for the Oak's reduction, I will be proposing the installation of a copper-lined geotextile root barrier across the rear garden of the site to prevent any further movement occurring to the building through this Summer and beyond." A separate application, submitted by an agent who has made several 'root barrier' applications through the borough in the recent past, was made accordingly. This separate application, received on 2nd June 2020, was registered under reference TPP/0375/20 “1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Cut roots as necessary to install root barrier to rear of the property in accordance with Optera Structural Solutions Arboricultural Method Statement. T14 of Tree Preservation Order”. Although originally stating on the application form "The reasons for the work are due to subsidence damage to the property.", amended application documents were subsequently submitted via the Planning Portal which clarified that the reason for the application was not 'Subsidence' per se but the proposed work of installing a barrier was for the purpose of preventing potential subsidence damage to property - thus the requirement for specified mandatory supporting documentary evidence was circumvented. Particularly in the light of the Covid 19 uncertainties, consideration of the ‘root barrier 3 7 application’ was expedited and conditional approval was granted on 3rd July 2020 under delegated powers.

2. Appraisal Tree and Amenity Value The Oak stands in the rear garden close to the rear boundary and adjacent to the flank boundary with number 16 Sutcliffe Close. Visible from Sutcliffe Close above the properties, the tree is also visible from surrounding properties. It is also very clearly visible from the communal land to the rear of the property and acts as a screen between this land and properties in Sutcliffe Close. This tree makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area. The Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area is internationally renowned for the way in which mature landscape features have been incorporated into the built environment and this mature Oak appears to be a former field boundary tree that was retained when Hampstead Garden Suburb was originally designed.

The Hampstead Garden Suburb Character Appraisal Statement is one of many documents setting out the importance of trees to the character and appearance of the area e.g.: - "Trees and hedges are defining elements of Hampstead Garden Suburb. The quality, layout and design of landscape, trees and green space in all its forms, are inseparable from the vision, planning and execution of the Suburb". - "Wherever possible, in laying out the design for "the Garden Suburb" particular care was taken to align roads, paths, and dwellings to retain existing trees and views. Extensive tree planting and landscaping was considered important when designing road layouts in Hampstead Garden Suburb, such that Maxwell Fry, one of the pioneer modernists in British architecture, held that "Unwin more than any other single man, turned the soulless English byelaw street towards light, air, trees and flowers". - "Unwin's expressed intention, which he achieved, was: 'to lay out the ground that every tree may be kept, hedgerows duly considered, and the foreground of distant views preserved, if not for open fields, yet as a gardened district, the buildings kept in harmony with the surroundings.'" - Trees contribute fundamentally to the distinctive character and appearance of the Conservation Area in a number of different ways, including: - Creating a rural or semi-rural atmosphere - Informing the layout of roads and houses with mature field boundary trees - Providing links with pre-development landscape and remaining woodland - Creating glades, providing screening and shade, and marking boundaries - Framing views, forming focal points, defining spaces and providing a sense of scale - Providing a productive, seasonal interest and creating wildlife habitats

Sutcliffe Close stands in the 'Northway, Middleway and Southway - Area 8' of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement. The Statement notes that the homes in Area 8 "were mostly designed for middle class owner residents, with garage provision" and that there "is a mixture of detached and semi- detached houses, with generous plot sizes throughout". In describing the overall character of Area 8 it comments "This is a quiet, attractive residential area. The fan shaped layout is well designed, utilising the sloping terrain to produce impressive views of the Central Square architecture at the top of Northway, Middleway and Southway roads (…) The closes fill the spaces between the principal roads providing more intimate environments. 4 8 There is a green ambience, with abundant street trees, views of Big Wood behind the Northway houses, widespread hedging and some grass verges. Apart from the lower section of Kingsley way and Northway, roads are quiet and the closes have a particularly intimate character." Included amongst the Principal positive features are "Closes provide peaceful, intimate spaces"; and "widespread use of twittens provides quick pedestrian access routes between the closes and main roads". In terms of 'Landscape and trees', the Statement observes "a few old trees which pre-date housing development remain on streets or in gardens". The architecture of Sutcliffe Close is described as "Architect J.W. Binge designed the symmetrical Sutcliffe Close in 1926. Each side of the road is made up of a symmetrical group of three, flanked either side by an asymmetrical semi-detached pair. All houses have small set-back garages. At the end of the road sits a group of four, which is again symmetrical. The groups of three and four have internal twitten access passageways to their back gardens."

18 Sutcliffe Close is one of the group of four houses at the end of the road. The Oak is considered to be of importance to the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area - it is a mature tree clearly visible from the intimate Close; the tree contributes significantly to the green ambience; providing links with the pre- development landscape; helping to provide screening and mark boundaries; provides seasonal interest and wildlife habitat; it contributes fundamentally to the rural / semi-rural atmosphere and peaceful intimate setting of the houses and the 'Garden Suburb' aesthetic.

The Oak is a mature tree, about 17 - 18 metres in height, which has been previously lifted to about 5m, thinned and with some lateral shortening. There has been regrowth from the previous works. The tree has an open spreading canopy and possibly has lost a primary leader at some point in the distant past – the spread is approximately 8m / 9m / 9m / 12m – there is a slight gap in the lower canopy attributable to a dead branch. Foliage is of reasonable form, density and colour. Some minor deadwood. The tree is in reasonable condition with no obvious major structural faults.

The resident confirmed that neither of the treatments conditionally approved in September 2015 (TPP/00468/15 – Crown thin by 20% including removal of deadwood, lifting of low branches and shortening of branches encroaching towards house) nor in July 2020 (TPP/0375/20 – Cut roots as necessary to install root barrier to rear of the property in accordance with Optera Structural Solutions Arboricultural Method Statement) have been implemented.

The application The application submitted by John Dodds with involvement from various representatives of Direct Group / Davies Property Solutions as agent was validated on 29th January 2020. The reason(s) for the proposed reduction of the Oak (applicant’s reference T1), T14 of the Tree Preservation Order cited on the application form is: “Very large solitary oak tree to rear of back garden. Very close to boundary of garden of number 16. (sketch plan provided under additional documents – oak tree shown as T1 in Arborists report. The tree is shown as T14 in the TPO). The rear projection of the house has suffered significant structural damage due to subsidence. Full investigation (additional document) was undertaken by specialist engineers including soil and root analysis. From this evidence and their own separate inspection (additional document) an Arboricultural Consultant concluded that the oak tree was the cause of the subsidence. The recommendations to 5 9 prevent further damage were a) reduction of crown by 4m-5m all around and b) maintain at reduced dimensions by way of regular pruning at intervals of 3 years maximum. Permission is sought both for 1) the initial crown reduction and 2) for the regular pruning.”

The application was registered as “1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Reduce crown by 4m - 5m all round. T14 of Tree Preservation Order”. It was not considered appropriate to include the second undefined “regular pruning” aspect given the vagueness of the “maintain at reduced dimensions by way of regular pruning at intervals of 3 years maximum” – open-ended unspecified treatment regardless of implication for the health, condition, or appearance of the tree; and there being a statutory default two-year duration to a consent – providing the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to consider the reasonableness of any repeat treatment application.

Including the additional information submitted subsequently, the supporting documentation comprised: - Arboricultural Consultancy for Direct Group Report dated 26th February 2019 - Details of vegetation management - received 29th October 2019 - Direct Group Preliminary Engineers Appraisal Report dated 24th August 2018 - Drainage Repair Company Drainage Report and Soil Testing Report dated 17th January 2019 (including Drain investigation, Root identification, Trial Pit / Borehole and Soil testing) - Sketches and photographs of damage dated 4th September 2019 - received 1st October 2019 - Estimated repair costs / options - received 1st October 2019 - Confirmation that surveyor not aware of any previous underpinning or building work - received 29th October 2019 - Heave calculation method clarification - received 14th November 2019 - Photographs of damage - received 17th July 2020 - level monitoring 7/6/19 – 8/7/20 (8 readings at approx. 2 monthly intervals) - crack monitoring 7/6/19 – 8/7/20 (7 readings at approx. 2 monthly intervals except September 2019) - Generic UK Soil Moisture Deficit Chart (data from 2003, 2018, and 2020 to week 13 (w/c 23/3/20)) - received 20th April 2020

The Direct Group Preliminary Engineers Appraisal Report notes that “The policyholder confirmed that 25 years ago there was previous subsidence to the property with current Insurers and a poplar tree was removed the property monitored to stability and repairs then carried out.” The Report further noted that crack damage had re-occurred in summer 2018 to the rear projection to the kitchen which was described as “moderate vertical and diagonal tapered cracking at low level on the left and rear right corner of the rear kitchen projection. After the visit the policyholder said that significant cracking had developed in the rear left lounge on the kitchen wall. There are very slight cracks to the bedroom and bathroom above. There is also disturbance to the crazy paved patio.” In respect of Table 1 of BRE Digest 251, the Report states “In this instance, at present the damage falls into Category 3 (“aesthetic damage”)” – albeit described in the table as ‘serviceability damage’.

Monitoring ‘sufficient to show a pattern of movement consistent with the presence of the implicated tree(s)’ is a mandatory requirement for a TPO treeworks application. However, although the application had initially been submitted on 28th March 2019, monitoring was not commenced until 30th May 2019 and readings taken thereafter at roughly two-monthly intervals were submitted intermittently - which resulted in considerable delay in validation. There was no crack monitoring reading for September 2019 as “technicians observed that 6 10 the crack had been filled in and this may have affected the readings”. It may also be noted that on 15th August 2019, the agent clarified that for the level monitoring “we have not used a deep datum in this instance as it was not considered to be required. A suitable datum point has been used on the area of the property opposite from the damage and is not moving.”

The Arboricultural Report noted “Removal of the Oak (T1) would offer the most certain and reliable arboricultural solution likely to restore long-term stability; however, we have been advised that unacceptable levels of heave are anticipated in the event that the tree is fully removed and as such we have been asked to provide alternative remedial options.”

In an e-mail on 1st October 2019, the agent indicated “Our surveyor has provided an estimate of £35,000.00 for property repairs and a further £25,000.00 if partial underpinning is required to the rear elevation of the property.”

On 20th April 2020 an e-mail was received from the Regional Technical Manager of Davies Property Solutions (a different representative of the agent) which included a Soil Moisture Deficit Chart (data from 2003, 2018, and 2020 to week 13 (w/c 23/3/20)). The Chart included no details as to soil type, depth, or location from which the soil moisture deficit had been measured, nor whether the data had been derived from open ground or in proximity to mature trees – the agent subsequently confirmed that the Chart was generic for the whole UK. Being generalised, rather than context specific, the information is considered to be of negligible value in assessing this particular application.

In the same e-mail, the Regional Technical Manager stated “should you not be able to give planning consent for the Oak’s reduction, I will be proposing the installation of a copper- lined geotextile root barrier across the rear garden of the site to prevent any further movement occurring to the building through this Summer and beyond.”

As noted in the Introduction and Relevant Recent Planning History, a separate application was accordingly received on 2nd June 2020 and was registered under reference TPP/0375/20 “1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Cut roots as necessary to install root barrier to rear of the property in accordance with Optera Structural Solutions Arboricultural Method Statement. T14 of Tree Preservation Order”. Particularly in the light of the Covid 19 uncertainties, consideration of the ‘root barrier application’ was expedited and conditional approval was granted on 3rd July 2020 under delegated powers.

No further correspondence or updated supporting evidence (e.g. monitoring information) was received from the agent following the submission of the ‘root barrier application’. All subsequent correspondence and information was received direct from the applicant.

In respect of the current application TPP/0218/19 to reduce the Oak’s crown by 4m – 5m all round, our Structural Engineer comments on the site investigation data and our site visit are as follows: 1. The foundations are 1m deep which is reasonable for the age of construction of the property. 2. The soil test results indicate desiccation of the clay sub-soil between 1.5m to 2.5m depth. 3. Oak tree roots were identified below the foundations. 4. The ‘stable’ datum used for the monitoring exercise is located at the rear LHS corner of the property and is unlikely to be fully stable, particularly as there is cracking of the rear wall in close proximity to the datum. However, the monitoring 7 11 results to the remainder of the rear elevation are consistent with enhanced seasonal movement, and it is likely that if a truly stable datum had been used the recorded movements would have been greater. 5. There is extensive cracking to the rear elevation, I would classify the damage as category 3 in accordance with BRE Digest 251. The owner advised most of the present damage occurred during the recent hot, dry spring of 2020. The crack damage to the rear elevation is consistent with foundations subsidence. 6. The owner advised previous large cracking below DPC level was repaired. 7. The owner advised the overall size of the Oak tree has increased in the years since they bought the property in 1993. 8. The oak tree is noted as significantly older than the property. 9. The next door property, no. 16, is a similar distance from the oak tree, however it has a recent rear extension and the deeper foundations of the extension would act as a root barrier for the rear elevation of no. 16.

He concludes that “On the basis of the above the oak tree T1 would be implicated in the subsidence damage to the property.” However, he also noted that there could be a risk of heave damage to the rear of the property, particularly if the previous large cracks below the dpc were repaired before any recovery of the ground movement occurred.

Given the importance of the Oak in the streetscene, its contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area, and the extant consent to the alternative way of addressing the damage, it is necessary to consider whether the proposed reduction crown by 4m – 5m all round of the significant TPO Oak at this juncture is excessive / appropriate.

The mature Oak is currently about 17 - 18 metres in height, with spread of approximately 8m / 9m / 9m / 12m, and has been previously lifted to about 5m. The proposed reduction by 4m – 5m all round would represent the removal of about 87.5% of the crown volume. Not only would the proposed reduction have significant implications for the public amenity value of the tree, negatively affecting the Oak’s appearance and essentially removing its presence in the streetscene, but it would have considerable detrimental impact on the tree’s health.

It should be noted that the British Standard BS 3998: 2010 "Tree work - Recommendations" advises: - (at 0.3), "While tree work can be desirable to accommodate people's requirements from the tree and the land around it, any work that exposes the woody tissues is a form of damage that can be detrimental to the tree in the long term. Various organisms (e.g. certain fungi and bacteria) can destroy (decay) woody tissues in a tree. Decay is a normal process in the ageing of trees but it can be accelerated, with potentially serious consequences, if a substantial proportion of the cross-section of a stem or major branch is injured, e.g. by pruning wounds (...). This can happen either if the organisms gain entry via wounds, or if they have previously been latent within tissues and later become activated as a result of injury. Inappropriate tree work or site disturbance, leading to injury or physiological stress, can make roots susceptible to a range of organisms that can sometimes kill and / or decay them." - (at 0.4), "However, pruning is also a form of damage, which removes foliage and locally disrupts columns of liquid and the network of living cells, so that zones of sapwood become physiologically dysfunctional. Decay tends to develop in the affected wood and can extend further within the tree, sometimes causing weakness. The amount of pruning

8 12 and the size of resultant wounds therefore need to be kept to the minimum required for the particular objective." - (at 7.2.3.2), "Mature and old trees generally have a reduced capacity to tolerate the potentially adverse effects of wounding, especially with regard to the development of physiological dysfunction and decay"

Lonsdale (in "Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management", TSO, 2nd imp. 2001) comments in respect of retention of foliage-bearing structure: "A maximum of 30%, variously interpreted (...) is sometimes advised for the allowable reduction in crown volume, with a view to retaining enough photosynthetic area for healthy growth and the maintenance of defences against dysfunction and decay in the wood."

The proposed reduction by 87.5% would considerably exceed 30% and would result in the removal of practically all of the foliage-bearing structure of the tree that is important for the maintenance of vitality.

Such treatment would be clearly contrary to the guidance and recommendations in British Standard BS 3998: 2010, which states (at 7.7.1): "The general principle is that, following reduction, there should still be a strong framework of healthy small-diameter branches and twigs (leaf-bearing structure), capable of producing dense leaf cover during the following growing season."

The treatment proposed equates to undesirable disfiguring 'topping' as it would involve the removal of most of the crown by indiscriminately cutting through main stems and fail to maintain the main framework of the crown and a high proportion of the foliage-bearing structure. As Lonsdale notes "Topping is highly disfiguring for most kinds of tree (especially when seen in winter) and is also more likely than crown reduction to cause severe xylem dysfunction and decay in major structural parts of the wood. It is now generally regarded as an undesirable practice, and should not be undertaken except in special circumstances."

It is considered that the proposed reduction by 4m – 5m all round would be contrary to good arboricultural practice; significantly detrimental to the health and appearance of the tree; its contribution to public amenity; and to the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area. Given the very high public amenity value of the tree, does the reason put forward for the proposed treatment constitute 'special circumstances' – particularly in the light of the extant consent to implement the root barrier?

The installation of the copper-impregnated root barrier and the proposed reduction of the tree represent alternative approaches to addressing the alleged subsidence problem - the former by creating a physical and biological means of deflecting root growth away from the building; the latter by removing so much of the crown that less rooting is required to support what is left of the canopy (there being a direct relationship between branch and root growth). If the consented root barrier is installed, the proposed reduction would be unnecessary.

In respect of the consented root barrier application (TPP/0375/20) – the installation of which was specifically proposed “to prevent any further movement occurring to the building through this Summer and beyond” and “to protect the property from potential subsidence damage” - it should be noted that the Optera Arboricultural Method Statement clarified that the document "provides details on the installation of a root barrier to separate the roots of 9 13 the nearby oak tree from the property. Site investigations and an arborist report have informed the design and location of the barrier."

The Optera Arboricultural Method Statement indicated the proposed root barrier would extend across the rear garden, approximately 9 metres in width, between the property and the Oak tree. The specification noted that recorded root depth is 2.5m and the minimum depth to be achieved with the copper impregnated bio-barrier would be 3.5m; the distance between the barrier and tree would be 5m+ and the shortest distance between the barrier and foundation would be 5m. It should also be noted that the Method Statement specified measures including ground protection which should help lessen the impact of the proposed works on the tree.

It is considered that the proposed position of the root barrier will provide a reasonable remaining soil rooting volume - especially given the context. It is therefore considered that the impact of the proposed root cutting would not have a significant detrimental impact on the health or the appearance of the tree - indeed, as the proposed treatment does not involve pruning of aerial parts of the tree it should barely affect its appearance at all - and consequently should not have a detrimental impact on the public amenity value of the tree.

In approving the ‘root barrier application’ (TPP/0375/20), it is considered that the proposed cutting of roots as set out in the Optera Method Statement would not negatively affect the tree's public amenity value - indeed, installation of the proposed barrier with appropriate ground protection measures would allow a reasonable prospect of tree retention with minimal impact on its health and appearance.

However, although the root barrier had been specifically designed to prevent any further movement occurring to the building ‘through this Summer and beyond’ and could have been installed at any time after 3rd July 2020, no action has been taken because the applicant chose to await site inspection / decision on the pruning application - contending that “Until the inspection takes place, we are unable to make the property safe as the damage must be visible to the inspector.”

3. Legislative background As the Oak is included in a Tree Preservation Order, formal consent is required for its treatment from the Council (as Local Planning Authority) in accordance with the provisions of the tree preservation legislation. In addition to this statutory requirement, the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust has a separate contractual mechanism of control over treeworks under its Scheme of Management. Consent is required from both bodies independently (and it is possible for consent to be granted by one and not the other). It may be noted that in his letter on 18th February 2020, Anthony George (the Suburb Trust’s Arboricultural Consultant) suggested that “insurers investigate a root barrier, which would be viable as it would be in the rear garden where there are no services present.”

Government guidance advises that when determining the application, the Council should (1) assess the amenity value of the tree and the likely impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area, and (2) in the light of that assessment, consider whether or not the proposal is justified, having regard to the reasons put forward in support of it. It should also consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused or granted subject to conditions. Government guidance further advises that "In general terms, it follows that the higher the amenity value of the tree or woodland and the greater any negative impact of proposed works on amenity, the stronger the reasons needed before 10 14 consent is granted. However, if the amenity value is lower and the impact is likely to be negligible, it may be appropriate to grant consent even if the authority believes there is no particular arboricultural need for the work.".

The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 provide that compensation is payable for loss or damage in consequence of refusal of consent or grant subject to conditions. The provisions include that compensation shall be payable to a person for loss or damage which, having regard to the application and the documents and particulars accompanying it, was reasonably foreseeable when consent was refused or was granted subject to conditions. In accordance with the 2012 Regulations, it is not possible to issue an Article 5 Certificate confirming that the tree is considered to have ‘outstanding’ or ‘special’ amenity value which would remove the Council’s liability under the Order to pay compensation for loss or damage incurred as a result of its decision.

In this case, the agent has indicated that “Our surveyor has provided an estimate of £35,000.00 for property repairs and a further £25,000.00 if partial underpinning is required to the rear elevation of the property.”

The Court has held that the proper test in claims for alleged tree-related property damage was whether the tree roots were the ‘effective and substantial’ cause of the damage or alternatively whether they ‘materially contributed to the damage’. The standard is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal test of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.

In accordance with the Tree Preservation legislation, the Council must either approve or refuse the application i.e. proposed reduction by 4m – 5m all round. The Council as Local Planning Authority has no powers to require lesser works or a programme of cyclical pruning management that may reduce the risk of alleged tree-related property damage. If it is considered that the amenity value of the tree is so high that the proposed reduction by 4m – 5m all round is not justified on the basis of the reason put forward together with the supporting documentary evidence, such that TPO consent is refused, there may be liability to pay compensation. It is to be observed that the Council’s Structural Engineer has noted that “On the basis of the above the oak tree T1 would be implicated in the subsidence damage to the property”. However, it should also be borne in mind that there is an extant consent to install a root barrier – which is an alternative solution to the subsidence problem that would be significantly less detrimental to the health and appearance of the tree; and be markedly more positive in terms of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area.

The statutory compensation liability arises for loss or damage in consequence of a refusal of consent or grant subject to conditions - a direct causal link has to be established between the decision giving rise to the claim and the loss or damage claimed for (having regard to the application and the documents and particulars accompanying it). Thus the cost of rectifying any damage that occurs before the date of the decision would not be subject of a compensation payment.

If it is concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Oak’s roots are the ‘effective and substantial’ cause of the damage or alternatively whether they ‘materially contributed to the damage’ and that the damage would be addressed by the tree’s reduction by 4m – 5m all round, there is potentially a compensation liability of £25,000 if consent for the proposed reduction is refused. However, the agent themselves put forward the installation of the root barrier specifically proposed “to prevent any further movement occurring to the

11 15 building through this Summer and beyond” and the separate ‘root barrier application’ (TPP/0375/20) has already been approved.

COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION Not applicable

EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) came into force in April 2011. The general duty on public bodies requires the Council to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality in relation to those with protected characteristics such as race, disability, and gender including gender reassignment, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy or maternity and foster good relations between different groups when discharging its functions.

The Council have considered the Act but do not believe that the confirmation of the Order would have a significant impact on any of the groups as noted in the Act.

CONCLUSION The application submitted by Mr John Dodds with some involvement of his subsequently appointed agent (representing Direct Group / Davies Property Solutions) proposes the reduction by 4m – 5m all round of the mature Oak standing in the rear garden of 18 Sutcliffe Close because of its alleged implication in subsidence damage to the property.

The proposed reduction of the Oak would be significantly harmful to the health and appearance of the mature tree itself; detrimental to the streetscene; and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area.

The Council’s Structural Engineer has inspected the site, assessed the supporting documentary evidence and has noted that “On the basis of the above the oak tree T1 would be implicated in the subsidence damage to the property”. However, there is an extant consent to install a root barrier – which is an alternative solution to the subsidence problem that would be significantly less detrimental to the health and appearance of the tree; and be markedly more positive in terms of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area.

Bearing in mind the potential implications for the public purse, as well as the public amenity value of the tree and its importance to the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area, it is necessary to considered whether or not the proposed reduction by 4m – 5m all round is justified as a remedy for the alleged subsidence damage on the basis of the information provided.

If it is concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Oak’s roots are the ‘effective and substantial’ cause of the damage or alternatively whether they ‘materially contributed to the damage’ and that the damage would be addressed by the tree’s reduction by 4m – 5m all round, there is potentially a compensation liability of £25,000 if consent for the proposed reduction is refused. However, the agent themselves put forward the installation of the root barrier specifically proposed “to prevent any further movement occurring to the building through this Summer and beyond” and the separate ‘root barrier application’ (TPP/0375/20) has already been approved.

It is considered that the proposed reduction by 4 – 5 metres all round would be detrimental to the health and appearance of the Oak, and would fail to preserve or enhance the 12 16 character and appearance of the Conservation Area - such treatment would not be in the interests of public amenity. The proposed reduction by 4 – 5 metres all round is not considered justifiable given the reason(s) put forward for the treatment in the light of the extant consent to install the root barrier, which provides an alternative solution to the subsidence problem (the agent for TPP/0218/19 himself proposed “the installation of a copper-lined geotextile root barrier across the rear garden of the site to prevent any further movement occurring to the building through this Summer and beyond”). It is recommended that this application “1 x Oak (applicant’s ref. T1) – Reduce crown by 4m – 5m all round. T14 of Tree Preservation Order” should therefore be refused.

This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright and database right 2020. All rights reserved. London Borough of Barnet Licence No. 100017674

13 17 This page is intentionally left blank

Location 34 Pulham Avenue London N2 0LR

Reference: 20/2747/FUL Received: 18th June 2020AGENDA ITEM 7 Accepted: 19th June 2020 Ward: East Finchley Expiry 14th August 2020

Applicant: Mr robert Keech

Erection of a two storey dwelling. Associated, landscaping, cycle store and Proposal: refuse and recycling

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

Approve subject to conditions

AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Design Access Statement, Located Plan, Revised Parking Statement, 20/036 Rev A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

2 This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3 a) No development or site works shall take place on site until a 'Demolition and 19 Construction Management and Logistics Plan' has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Demolition and Construction Management and Logistics Plan submitted shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

i. details of the routing of construction vehicles to the site, hours of access, access and egress arrangements within the site and security procedures; ii. site preparation and construction stages of the development; iii. details of provisions for recycling of materials, the provision on site of a storage/delivery area for all plant, site huts, site facilities and materials; iv. details showing how all vehicles associated with the construction works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage to mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway; v. the methods to be used and the measures to be undertaken to control the emission of dust, noise and vibration arising from construction works; vi. a suitable and efficient means of suppressing dust, including the adequate containment of stored or accumulated material so as to prevent it becoming airborne at any time and giving rise to nuisance; vii. noise mitigation measures for all plant and processors; viii. details of contractors compound and car parking arrangements; ix. details of interim car parking management arrangements for the duration of construction; x. details of a community liaison contact for the duration of all works associated with the development.

For major sites, the Statement shall be informed by the findings of the assessment of the air quality impacts of construction and demolition phases of the development.

b) The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the measures detailed within the statement.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, noise and good air quality in accordance with Policies DM04 and DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016) and Policies 5.21, 5.3, 5.18, 7.14 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2016).

4 a) Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, details of enclosures and screened facilities for the storage of recycling containers and wheeled refuse bins or other refuse storage containers where applicable, together with a satisfactory point of collection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The development shall be implemented in full accordance with the details as approved under this condition prior to the first occupation and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development and satisfactory accessibility; and to protect the amenities of the area in accordance with policies DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and CS14 of the Adopted Barnet Core Strategy DPD (2012). 20

5 Details of cycle parking including the type of stands, gaps between stands, location and type of cycle store proposed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, before the development hereby permitted is occupied, a minimum of 2(long stay) cycle parking spaces in accordance with the London Plan Cycle Parking Standards and London Cycle Design Standards shall be provided and shall not be used for any purpose other than parking of vehicles in connection with the approved development.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of bicycles in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with London Borough of Barnet's Local Plan Policy CS9 of Core Strategy (Adopted) September 2012 and Policy DM17 of Development Management Policies (Adopted) September 2012.

6 The applicant shall carry out a "before" and "after" condition survey of the agreed route to be utilised by all construction traffic. The "before" survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The "after" survey shall be completed three months before the completion of the development and thereafter submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any recommended works necessary to reinstate the condition of the agreed route to that identified within the "before" survey shall be implemented as approved following completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the road is maintained in a suitable condition in order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway.

7 No site works including demolition or construction work shall commence until a Demolition and Construction Management and Logistics Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in full accordance with the details approved under this plan. The Demolition and Construction Management and Logistics Statement submitted shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:

i. details of the routing of construction vehicles to the site, hours of access, access and egress arrangements within the site and security procedures; ii. site preparation and construction stages of the development; iii. details of provisions for recycling of materials, the provision on site of a storage/delivery area for all plant, site huts, site facilities and materials; iv. details showing how all vehicles associated with the construction works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage to mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway; v. the methods to be used and the measures to be undertaken to control the emission of dust, noise and vibration arising from construction works; vi. a suitable and efficient means of suppressing dust, including the adequate containment of stored or accumulated material so as to prevent it becoming airborne at any time and giving rise to nuisance; vii. noise mitigation measures for all plant and processors; viii. details of contractor's compound and car parking arrangements; ix. Details of interim car parking management arrangements for the duration of construction; x. Details of a community liaison contact for the duration of all works associated 21 with the development. xi. Provision of a competent banksman.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with policies CS9, CS13, CS14, DM01, DM04 and DM17 of the Barnet Local Plan and polices 5.3, 5.18, 7.14 and 7.15 of the London Plan.

8 Before the permitted development is occupied, details of refuse storage and collection arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall only be operated in accordance with the approved delivery service plan.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with London Borough of Barnet's Local Plan Policy CS9 of Core Strategy (Adopted) September 2012 and Policy DM17 of Development Management Policies (Adopted) September 2012

9 a) A scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to be retained and size, species, planting heights, densities and positions of any soft landscaping, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the hereby approved development.

b) All work comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting and seeding season following occupation of any part of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is sooner, or commencement of the use.

c) Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with Policies CS5 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016) and 7.21 of the London Plan 2016.

10 a) The site shall not be brought into use or first occupied until details of the means of enclosure, including boundary treatments, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved as part of this condition before first occupation or the use is commenced and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and/or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to confine access to the permitted points in the interest of the flow of traffic and conditions of general safety on the adjoining highway in accordance with 22 Policies DM01, DM03, DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), and Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012).

11 a) Before development commences, a scheme of proposed air pollution mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The approved mitigation scheme shall be implemented in its entirety in accordance with details approved under this condition before any of the development is first occupied or the use commences and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers are protected from the poor air quality in the vicinity in accordance with Policy DM04 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, and Policy 5.3 of the London Plan 2015.

12 Prior to the first occupation of the new dwellinghouse(s) (Use Class C3) hereby approved they shall all have been constructed to have 100% of the water supplied to them by the mains water infrastructure provided through a water meter or water meters and each new dwelling shall be constructed to include water saving and efficiency measures that comply with Regulation 36(2)(b) of Part G 2 of the Building Regulations to ensure that a maximum of 105 litres of water is consumed per person per day with a fittings based approach should be used to determine the water consumption of the proposed development. The development shall be maintained as such in perpetuity thereafter.

Reason: To encourage the efficient use of water in accordance with policy CS13 of the Barnet Core Strategy (2012) and Policy 5.15 of the March 2016 Minor Alterations to the London Plan and the 2016 Mayors Housing SPG.

13 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved it shall be constructed incorporating carbon dioxide emission reduction measures which achieve an improvement of not less than 6% in carbon dioxide emissions when compared to a building constructed to comply with the minimum Target Emission Rate requirements of the 2010 Building Regulations. The development shall be maintained as such in perpetuity thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and minimises carbon dioxide emissions and to comply with the requirements of policies DM01 and DM02 of the Barnet Development Management Polices document (2012), Policies 5.2 and 5.3 of the London Plan (2015) and the 2016 Mayors Housing SPG.

14 No construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am or after 1.00 pm on Saturdays, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm pm on other days.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with policy DM04 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

15 a) No development shall take place until details of the levels of the building(s), 23 road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and highway(s) and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details as approved under this condition and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access, the safety and amenities of users of the site, the amenities of the area and the health of any trees or vegetation in accordance with policies CS NPPF, CS1, CS5 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policies DM01, DM04 and DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), and Policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2016.

16 a) No development other than demolition works shall take place until details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the materials as approved under this condition.

Reason: To safeguard the character and visual amenities of the site and wider area and to ensure that the building is constructed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policies 1.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016.

Informative(s):

1 In accordance with paragraphs 38-57 of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions. The LPA has produced planning policies and written guidance to assist applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered. The LPA has negotiated with the applicant/agent where necessary during the application process to ensure that the proposed development is in accordance with the Development Plan.

2 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) applies to all 'chargeable development'. This is defined as development of one or more additional units, and / or an increase to existing floor space of more than 100 sq m. Details of how the calculations work are provided in guidance documents on the Planning Portal at 24 www.planningportal.gov.uk/cil.

The Mayor of London adopted a CIL charge on 1st April 2012 setting a rate of £60 per sq m on all forms of development in Barnet except for education and health developments which are exempt from this charge.

The London Borough of Barnet adopted a CIL charge on 1st May 2013 setting a rate of £135 per sq m on residential and retail development in its area of authority. All other uses and ancillary car parking are exempt from this charge. Y

Please note that Indexation will be added in line with Regulation 40 of Community Infrastructure Levy.

Liability for CIL will be recorded to the register of Local Land Charges as a legal charge upon your site payable should you commence development. Receipts of the Mayoral CIL charge are collected by the London Borough of Barnet on behalf of the Mayor of London; receipts are passed across to Transport for London to support Crossrail, London's highest infrastructure priority.

You will be sent a 'Liability Notice' that provides full details of the charge and to whom it has been apportioned for payment. If you wish to identify named parties other than the applicant for this permission as the liable party for paying this levy, please submit to the Council an 'Assumption of Liability' notice, which is also available from the Planning Portal website.

The CIL becomes payable upon commencement of development. You are required to submit a 'Notice of Commencement' to the Council's CIL Team prior to commencing on site, and failure to provide such information at the due date will incur both surcharges and penalty interest. There are various other charges and surcharges that may apply if you fail to meet other statutory requirements relating to CIL, such requirements will all be set out in the Liability Notice you will receive. You may wish to seek professional planning advice to ensure that you comply fully with the requirements of CIL Regulations.

If you have a specific question or matter you need to discuss with the CIL team, or you fail to receive a 'Liability Notice' from the Council within 1 month of this grant of planning permission, please email us at: [email protected].

Relief or Exemption from CIL:

If social housing or charitable relief applies to your development or your development falls within one of the following categories then this may reduce the final amount you are required to pay; such relief must be applied for prior to commencement of development using the 'Claiming Exemption or Relief' form available from the Planning Portal website: www.planningportal.gov.uk/cil.

You can apply for relief or exemption under the following categories:

1. Charity: If you are a charity, intend to use the development for social housing or feel that there are exception circumstances affecting your development, you may be eligible for a reduction (partial or entire) in this CIL Liability. Please see the documentation published by the Department for Communities and Local Government at 25 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6314/ 19021101.pdf

2. Residential Annexes or Extensions: You can apply for exemption or relief to the collecting authority in accordance with Regulation 42(B) of Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010), as amended before commencement of the chargeable development.

3. Self Build: Application can be made to the collecting authority provided you comply with the regulation as detailed in the legislation.gov.uk

Please visit http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil for further details on exemption and relief.

3 Surface of the highway and any gullies or drains nearby must be protected with plastic sheeting. Residue must never be washed into nearby gullies or drains. During the development works, any gullies or drains adjacent to the building site must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Highways Authority. If any gully is damaged or blocked, the applicant will be liable for all costs incurred. The Applicant shall ensure that all watercourses, drains, ditches, etc. are kept clear of any spoil, mud, slurry or other material likely to impede the free flow of water therein

4 Please note existing public highways shall not be used as sites for stock piling and storing plant, vehicles, materials or equipment without an appropriate licence. Any damage to the paved surfaces, verges, surface water drains or street furniture shall be made good as directed by the Authority. The Applicant shall be liable for the cost of reinstatement if damage has been caused to highways. On completion of the works, the highway shall be cleared of all surplus materials, washed and left in a clean and tidy condition.

5 Please note that to arrange a joint highway condition survey and/or to apply for a S184 licence for the offsite highway works (proposed crossover ), please contact the Highways Development Control on 020 8359 3555 or by e-mail [email protected] or [email protected] at least 10 days prior to commencement of the development works.

6 The applicant is advised that any development or conversion which necessitates the removal, changing, or creation of an address or addresses must be officially registered by the Council through the formal 'Street Naming and Numbering' process.

The London Borough of Barnet is the Street Naming and Numbering Authority and is the only organisation that can create or change addresses within its boundaries. Applications are the responsibility of the developer or householder who wish to have an address created or amended.

Occupiers of properties which have not been formally registered can face a multitude of issues such as problems with deliveries, rejection of banking / insurance applications, problems accessing key council services and most importantly delays in an emergency situation. 26

Further details and the application form can be downloaded from: http://www.barnet.gov.uk/naming-and-numbering-applic-form.pdf or requested from the Street Naming and Numbering Team via [email protected] or by telephoning 0208 359 4500.

OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT

1. Site Description

The application site is the garden of an end of terraced property located on the western side of Pulham Avenue in the East Finchley Ward of London. The row of terraced houses have large front gardens, only one has off street parking.

The estate is accessed from East End Road to the north. The area is predominantly residential in character however, there is a school situated at the end of the cul-de-sac. The character of the area beyond the site consists of a mixture of semi-detached dwellings within generous and mature gardens. There are also a large number of three storey flatted residential blocks along East End Road. Elmshurst Crescent and Pulham Avenue features a mixture of large, visually dominant three blocks. These are mainly situated along the eastern and southern side of Elmshurst Crescent.

The proposal is not located in a conservation area and the site is not located within the setting of any listed buildings or locally listed buildings.

2. Site History

N/A

3. Proposal

Erection of a two-storey dwelling. Associated parking, landscaping, cycle store and refuse and recycling.

4. Public Consultation

Consultation letters were sent to 68 neighbouring properties. 5 responses have been received, comprising 5 letters of objection. The objections received can be summarised as follows: - Parking Concerns, - Charter and appearance, - Visual impact of paving the majority of the front gardens, - Reduction in wildlife through lost habitats and permeable surfaces. - Paving front gardens changes the greenness, attractiveness and character of whole streets and as such it is recommended that the hardstanding area is restricted to a suitable space to accommodate a vehicle and that the remaining frontage is retained as a green space to minimise the environmental impact on the neighbourhood and to promote wildlife such as bees, butterflies and other pollinators - All of the houses in Pulham Avenue were sold by Barnet Council with Covenants registered at the Land Registry, intended to maintain the open plan layout of the estate. 27 Specifically, owners must maintain the land in front of the house as 'a lawn properly tended and mown'. Also 'Not at any time hereafter to park or permit to be parked on the part of the premises in front of the dwellinghouse any motor vehicle whatsoever'. - The planning application would be in breach of these covenants. - If it is the Council's intention to change its mind and ignore its rights to prevent off street parking in Pulham Avenue, then the same rules should apply to all the other houses in the road. Conversion of many front gardens would surely follow, to the detriment of the estate environment. - Over-development of the site and the proposed car parking is out of character with the area.

5. Planning Considerations

5.1 Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance

The determination of planning applications is made mindful of Central Government advice and the Local Plan for the area. It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against another.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 19th February 2019. This is a key part of the Governments reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth.

The NPPF states that 'good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities…. being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this'. The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This applies unless any adverse impacts of a development would 'significantly and demonstrably' outweigh the benefits.

The Mayor's London Plan 2016

The London Development Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to 2050. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London and is recognised in the NPPF as part of the development plan.

The London Plan provides a unified framework for strategies that are designed to ensure that all Londoners benefit from sustainable improvements to their quality of life.

The London Plan is currently under review. Whilst capable of being a material consideration, at this early stage very limited weight should be attached to the Draft London Plan. Although this weight will increase as the Draft London Plan progresses to examination stage and beyond, applications should continue to be determined in accordance with the adopted London Plan

Barnet's Local Plan (2012)

Barnet's Local Plan is made up of a suite of documents including the Core Strategy and 28 Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents. Both were adopted in September 2012. - Relevant Core Strategy Policies: CS NPPF, CS1, CS5. - Relevant Development Management Policies: DM01, DM02, DM04, DM17.

The Council's approach to extensions as set out in Policy DM01 is to minimise their impact on the local environment and to ensure that occupiers of new developments as well as neighbouring occupiers enjoy a high standard of amenity. Policy DM01 states that all development should represent high quality design and should be designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers. Policy DM02 states that where appropriate, development will be expected to demonstrate compliance to minimum amenity standards and make a positive contribution to the Borough. The development standards set out in Policy DM02 are regarded as key for Barnet to deliver the highest standards of urban design.

Supplementary Planning Documents

Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted October 2016) - Sets out information for applicants to help them design an extension to their property which would receive favourable consideration by the Local Planning Authority and was the subject of separate public consultation. The SPD states that large areas of Barnet are characterised by relatively low density suburban housing with an attractive mixture of terrace, semi detached and detached houses. The Council is committed to protecting, and where possible enhancing the character of the borough's residential areas and retaining an attractive street scene.

- States that extensions should normally be subordinate to the original house, respect the original building and should not be overly dominant. Extensions should normally be consistent in regard to the form, scale and architectural style of the original building which can be achieved through respecting the proportions of the existing house and using an appropriate roof form. - In respect of amenity, states that extensions should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure that they do not result in harmful loss of outlook, appear overbearing, or cause an increased sense of enclosure to adjoining properties. They should not reduce light to neighbouring windows to habitable rooms or cause significant overshadowing, and should not look out of place, overbearing or intrusive when viewed from surrounding areas.

Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016) - Provides detailed guidance that supplements policies in the adopted Local Plan, and sets out how sustainable development will be delivered in Barnet.

5.2 Main issues for consideration

The main issues for consideration in this case are:

- Principle of residential development - Character and appearance - Impact on living conditions of neighbouring residents. - Quality of accommodation proposed

5.3 Assessment of proposals

29 Principle of residential development

Policy CS4 provides policy on quality homes and housing choice in Barnet and states that, "seeking a range of dwelling sizes and types of housing including family and lifetime homes that meets our identified housing priorities and does not undermine suburban character or local distinctiveness."

DM08 states that, "Development should provide where appropriate a mix of dwelling types and sizes in order to provide choice for a growing and diverse population for all households in the borough."

The proposal would be utilising the large side garage of No. 34 Pulham Avenue to construct a 2-storey single family dwellinghouse and would contribute towards increase in family homes in Barnet and would comply with Policies CS4 and DM8. It is noted that the proposed site is the existing side garden of No. 34 Pulham Avenue, this large side garden is not a common feature in the surrounding area. Consequently, given the proposed scheme would follow the established character of Pulham Avenue, there would be no in-principle objection to the proposed scheme subject to design, amenity and highways considerations.

Character and appearance

The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, stating that, "good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities" (para.124).

Policy DM01 states, 'development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics and should respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets'.

The proposal would be utilising the large side garage of No. 34 Pulham, side garden is not a common feature in the surrounding area. The proposed scheme would follow the established character of Pulham Avenue, the proposed design would mirror no. 34 Pulham Avenue. The proposal has been amended to include a large garden to the front of the property which maintains the character of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan encourages and supports the development of new housing where this is not constrained by the safeguards afforded to the green belt and open space and heritage assets and where the development preserves and complements the Borough's high-quality suburbs. The local planning authority should support development which would constitute sustainable development in the context of the NPPF.

The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, stating that, "good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities" (para.124).

Policy DM01 states, 'development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics and should respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets'.

The proposal is located within the existing side garden, the plot would be subdivided, and the new building would be aligned with the existing dwellinghouse which is reflective of the pattern of development in this area. The proposed layout of the dwelling within the site is 30 considered acceptable and there are sufficient gaps between the proposed and existing dwelling.

The proposed two storeys in height reflects the prevailing heights of building in the surrounding area the proposal would have the same pitch and ridge height as No. 34 Pulham. Furthermore, the proposed building would have a width comparable to the properties on the surrounding roads, it would feature similar materials to the row of terraces.

The resultant garden of No. 34 Pulham would be reduced however it would still be over what is required under the SPD guidance. The proposal is not considered to be a cramped or an overdevelopment of the site.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be of a high-quality design and its siting, scale and height are considered to be appropriate within the application site, the street scene and surrounding area.

Impact of Residential Amenities

In terms of protecting overlooking, Barnet's Residential Design Guidance SPD states that there should be a minimum distance of about 21m between properties with facing windows to habitable rooms to avoid overlooking, and 10.5m to a neighbouring garden. Shorter distances may be acceptable between new build properties where there are material justifications.

The proposal will not cause any significate overlooking concerns as the rear elevation looks onto Oak Lodge School grounds there is no residential properties to the rear or to the west of the proposed site the property to the east would not be detrimental impact with regard to outlook or privacy.

On balance, the proposal is not considered to significantly harm the amenity of the occupiers of the surrounding properties.

Provision of adequate accommodation for future occupiers

In terms of the amenity for future occupiers, the Planning Authority expects a high standard of internal design and layout in new residential development to provide an adequate standard of accommodation. The London Plan and Barnet's Sustainable Design and Construction SPD sets out the minimum space requirements for residential dwellings.

The proposed dwelling meets the said requirements and would provide reasonable level of outlook and daylight for each of the rooms.

In terms of outdoor amenity space, Barnet's Sustainable Design and Construction SPD sets out the minimum standards for outdoor amenity space provision in new residential developments dwelling of up to 4 bedrooms should provide a minimum of 40sqm. The proposal meets the minimum requirement.

Overall, the proposal is considered to provide an acceptable level of residential accommodation for future occupiers.

Highways and parking provision

Barnet policy DM17 states that the Council will expect development to provide parking in 31 accordance with the London Plan standards.

As previously stated, the proposal was amended to feature a front garden. The proposed car parking spaces were therefore omitted from the proposal.

Councils Highways team having reviewed the new layout on site and given that the additional 2 bed unit will only generate between 1-1.5 car spaces. Based on site observations and images on google street view, Highways are of the view that this level of displacement is unlikely to significantly change parking conditions on the road.

The office did a site visit on 27/10/2020 at 10pm to insure there were space available and no displacement would be caused. It was noted that there was road works preventing some parking. However, there were still free car space avilable to park.

Overall, the proposal is found to be acceptable on highways ground and compliant with policy DM17 subject to condition.

5.4 Response to Public Consultation

The public consultation responses have been addressed within the report and through conditions of consent.

6. Equality and Diversity Issues

The proposal does not conflict with either Barnet Council's Equalities Policy or the commitments set in the Equality Scheme and supports the Council in meeting its statutory equality responsibilities.

7. Conclusion

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and the locality. The development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This application is therefore recommended for approval.

32

33 This page is intentionally left blank

Location 68 Francklyn Gardens Edgware HA8 8RZ

Reference: 20/3262/RCU Received: 20th July 2020AGENDA ITEM 8 Accepted: 30th July 2020 Ward: Edgware Expiry 24th September 2020

Applicant: G Begal

Proposal: Single storey rear extension (retrospective application)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee)

1 The development, by reason of the size, bulk and excessive rearward projection of the ground floor element, would constitute an incongruous and unsympathetic overdevelopment that would fail to be appropriately subordinate to the scale and proportions of the original dwelling, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host property and wider pattern of development, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS5 of the LB Barnet: Local Plan (Core Strategy) DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet: Local Plan (Development Management Policies) DPD (2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016)

2 The proposed ground floor rear extension, by reason of its size, siting in proximity to the boundary and excessive rearward projection, would result in an unnaceptable loss of outlook and overbearing sense of enclosure to the detriment of the visual and residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers at No 66 Francklyn Gardens, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS5 of the LB Barnet: Local Plan (Core Strategy) DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet: Local Plan (Development Management Policies) DPD (2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016)

35

Informative(s):

1 The plans accompanying this application are:

2006.E1 2006.E2 2006.P1 2006.P2 Site Location Plan Cover Letter, EA Planning, 09/07/2020

2 In accordance with paragraphs 38-57 of the NPPF, the Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions. To assist applicants in submitting development proposals, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has produced planning policies and written guidance to guide applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre- application advice service is also offered.

The applicant did not seek to engage with the LPA prior to the submission of this application through the established formal pre-application advice service. The LPA has discussed the proposal with the applicant/agent where necessary during the application process. Unfortunately the scheme is not considered to accord with the Development Plan. If the applicant wishes to submit a further application, the Council is willing to assist in identifying possible solutions through the pre-application advice service.

OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT

This application has been called to the Committee at the request of Cllr Freedman, for the following reasons:

" 1. The council guidance of 3m is in order not to impact the neighbour. It is guidance and not law. As the neighbour has consented to 6m flank wall on the adjoining boundary, that should be considered acceptable in planning terms.

2. There are no objections from neighbours, only support.

3. As the applicant can achieve the same as they are applying for if they build in stages (at a cost), it seems ludicrous not to accept it now.

4. After discussing this with the planning officer he said that if we build it as permission allowed, then apply to fill in the gap, we would get full permission. This seems environmentally incorrect to build a wall, knock it down, create landfill and then build a new wall. Rather build the finish people and protect our environment."

1. Site Description 36

The application site is a two-storey semi-detached single-family dwelling located on the eastern side of Franklyn Gardens within the ward of Edgware with a private residential garden to the rear.

To the east, the property directly adjoins No.66 Francklyn Gardens. To the immediate west of the property, the site shares a common boundary with No.68 Francklyn Gardens. To the rear, the application site abuts Nos 51 and 53 Harrowes Meade.

The area is characterised by similar two storey semi-detached properties with amenity space to the rear in the form of garden spaces and off-street parking facilities to the front.

The application site does not contain a listed building and does not fall within a conservation area.

2. Site History

Reference: 19/0808/192 Address: 68 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RZ Decision: Lawful Decision Date: 9 April 2019 Description: Roof extension involving hip to gable, rear dormer window with juliette balcony and 1no front facing rooflight

Reference: 19/0809/HSE Address: 68 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RZ Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 11 April 2019 Description: Part single, part two storey rear extension. New front porch

Reference: 19/5050/HSE Address: 68 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RZ Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 28 January 2020 Description: Single storey front extension to facilitate new front porch. Part single, part two storey rear extension. Roof extension, including, part hip to gable, rear dormer window with 1no. juliette balcony, and 1no. rooflight to front roofslope

Reference: 20/1268/PNH Address: 68 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RZ Decision: Prior Approval Not Required Decision Date: 9 April 2020 Description: Single storey rear extension with a proposed depth of 6 metres from original rear wall, eaves height of 2.97 metres and maximum height of 2.97 metres.

3. Proposal

The development description seeks planning permission for part retention and completion of the ground floor rear extension situated on the adjoining boundary line with No.66 Francklyn Gardens.

37 The site gained approval for a larger home extension under planning reference number 20/1268/PNH on the 9th April 2020. The extension proposed the dimensions of 6 metres in depth, 2.72 metres in width and a maximum height of 2.97 metres.

Having assessed the submitted documents (of which were confirmed through photographic evidence provided by the agent of this application) it is noted that the previously mentioned approval was not substantially completed in accordance with the approved drawings as permitted in the notification pursuant to paragraph A.1(g) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).

The current proposal has now sought approval for increasing the width of the extension by 1.55 metres to wrap-around the existing ground floor extension situated on the left flank of the dwelling.

The rear elevation of the extension would contain fenestration, which would match insitu materials on the rear elevation of the property.

It is noted the fenestration on the rear dormer currently proposed was not approved under planning reference number 19/5050/HSE and is not included within the realm of this application. Further, it is noted that the hip to gable and rear dormer roof extension and first floor rear extension, approved under the previously mentioned application, is not existing (contrary to submitted drawings).

The previously approved ground floor rear extension was not substantially completed.

4. Public Consultation

Consultation letters were sent to 4 neighbouring properties,

3no letters of support was received from properties outside of the consulted properties. - I have seen the plans for this house and am in support of this scheme. - It is also in keeping with current scale of developments in the area. - As a neighbour living behind this property, I support the application which is similar to other development in this area.

5. Planning Considerations

5.1 Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance

The determination of planning applications is made mindful of Central Government advice and the Local Plan for the area. It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against another.

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019. This is a key part of the Governments reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth.

38 The NPPF states that 'good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people'. The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This applies unless any adverse impacts of a development would 'significantly and demonstrably' outweigh the benefits.

Existing policies in Barnet's Local Plan (2012) and the London Plan (2016) should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the revised NPPF. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the revised NPPF.

The Mayor's London Plan 2016

The London Development Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to 2031. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London and is recognised in the NPPF as part of the development plan.

The London Plan provides a unified framework for strategies that are designed to ensure that all Londoners benefit from sustainable improvements to their quality of life.

Whilst capable of being a material consideration, at this early stage very limited weight should be attached to the Draft London Plan. Although this weight will increase as the Draft London Plan progresses to examination stage and beyond, applications should continue to be determined in accordance with the 2016 London Plan.

Barnet's Local Plan (2012)

Barnet's Local Plan is made up of a suite of documents including the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents. Both were adopted in September 2012. - Relevant Core Strategy Policies: CS NPPF, CS1, CS5. - Relevant Development Management Policies: DM01, DM02.

The Council's approach to extensions as set out in Policy DM01 is to minimise their impact on the local environment and to ensure that occupiers of new developments as well as neighbouring occupiers enjoy a high standard of amenity. Policy DM01 states that all development should represent high quality design and should be designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers.

Policy DM02 states that where appropriate, development will be expected to demonstrate compliance to minimum amenity standards and make a positive contribution to the Borough. The development standards set out in Policy DM02 are regarded as key for Barnet to deliver the highest standards of urban design.

Supplementary Planning Documents

Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016)

- Sets out information for applicants to help them design developments which would receive favourable consideration by the Local Planning Authority. The SPD states that large areas 39 of Barnet are characterised by relatively low density suburban housing with an attractive mixture of terrace, semi-detached and detached houses. The Council is committed to protecting, and where possible enhancing the character of the borough's residential areas and retaining an attractive street scene.

- States developments should normally be consistent in regard to the form, scale and architectural style of the original building which can be achieved through respecting the proportions of the existing house and using an appropriate roof form.

- In respect of amenity it states that developments should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure that they do not result in harmful loss of outlook, appear overbearing, or cause an increased sense of enclosure to adjoining properties. They should not reduce light to neighbouring windows to habitable rooms or cause significant overshadowing, and should not look out of place, overbearing or intrusive when viewed from surrounding areas.

Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted 2016)

- Provides detailed guidance that supplements policies in the adopted Local Plan, and sets out how sustainable development will be delivered in Barnet.

5.2 Main issues for consideration

Officers consider that the main planning considerations are as follows: - Whether harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the Watling Estate Conservation Area, existing building, the street scene and the wider locality; - Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents

5.3 Assessment of proposals

In the interests of good planning, it is essential to ensure that the prior approval extension had been constructed and substantially completed in accordance with the approved plans so that the extension currently under consideration can be divorced from a reliance on permitted development rights that would no longer pertain. In this instance, the larger home extension was not substantially completed and as such, the whole of the ground floor as built falls to be considered against the policies of the Development Plan - in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Impact on the character and appearance of the property and general locality:

In that context, any scheme for the site will need to respect the character and appearance of the local area, relate appropriately to the sites context and comply with development plan policies in these respects. This will include suitably addressing the requirements of development plan policies such as DM01, CS05 (both of the Barnet Local Plan), 7.4 and 7.6 (both of the London Plan).

The Council's Residential Design Guidance SPD outlines that extensions to houses can have a profound effect on the appearance of an area. In regard to character, Policy DM01 of the Council's Development Management Policies outlines that development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics and seek to preserve or 40 enhance local character. Further, the Council's Residential Design Guidance SPD outlines that extensions should not be unduly overbearing or prominent and should normally be subordinate to the existing dwelling.

Paragraph 14.13 of the Council's Residential Design Guidance SPD advocates that extensions should fit into the street, being consistent with the architectural character, neighbouring properties, and any special nature of the area.

According to the guidelines set out in the Council's Residential Design Guidance (2016), an acceptable depth for a single storey rear extension to a semi-detached dwellinghouse is 3.5 metres from the original rear wall. The current proposal extends a maximum depth of 6 metres along the shared boundary line with No.66 Francklyn Gardens.

The Residential Design Guidance states that single storey rear extensions need to ensure that they do not appear bulky and prominent compared to the size of the main building and garden in which they relate. It goes on to outline that a depth of 3.5 metres is normally considered acceptable for a single storey rear extension on a semi-detached dwelling. Viewing the existing house, which is 8.78 metres deep and two storeys high (notwithstanding the additional bulk from the recently approved roof extension), the total depth of the existing single storey rear extension would measure 6 metres in depth and a maximum height of 2.97 metres. The rear extension would constitute a 68% increase to the footprint of the original dwellinghouse. Therefore, it is considered that the development is not sympathetic nor appropriately subordinate to the original dwellinghouse.

Further, in light of the approved application under reference number 19/5050/HSE the extension would contribute to a cumulative impact that would create a development that would be demonstrably disproportionate in its physical manifestation to such an extent that harm would occur to the character of the original dwelling.

The proposed rear extension is not visible from the streetscene and therefore it is acknowledged that it would not have an impact on the character of the streetscene.

Potential impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring residents

It will be important that any scheme addresses the relevant development plan policies (for example policy DM01 of the Barnet Local Plan and policy 7.6 of the London Plan) in respect of the protection of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This will include taking a full account of all neighbouring sites.

The proposed extension would extend 6 metres from the rear wall of the application site. The rear wall of the adjoining property of No.66 Francklyn Gardens is flush with the application site and so the extension would extend 6 metres beyond the rear wall of the neighbouring property. The extension would exceed the advised depth of an extension for a semi-detached dwelling by some 2.5 metres according to Barnet SPD (2016) and is thus considered to result in a deleterious impact to the occupiers of No.66 by reason of an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook from the rear ground floor habitable rooms and garden

Therefore, the proposed development, by virtue of its position, scale and excessive rearward projection is considered to have unacceptable impact to the occupiers at No.66 Francklyn Gardens, contrary to the expectations of Policy DM01.

41

5.4 Response to Public Consultation

Key planning considerations have been addressed in the above section. Other points made are not material planning considerations.

6. Equality and Diversity Issues

The proposal does not conflict with either Barnet Council's Equalities Policy or the commitments set in the Equality Scheme and supports the Council in meeting its statutory equality responsibilities.

7. Conclusion

The proposed development is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site and result in an unacceptable impact to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers at No.66 Francklyn Gardens. Therefore, this application is recommended for REFUSAL.

42

43 This page is intentionally left blank

Location 49 Francklyn Gardens Edgware HA8 8RU

Reference: 20/3857/HSE Received: 21st August AGENDA2020 ITEM 9 Accepted: 24th August 2020 Ward: Edgware Expiry 19th October 2020

Applicant: Mr Daniel Sanground

First floor side extension with hipped roof, roof extension involving rear Proposal: dormer windows and 4no front facing rooflights

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee)

1 The proposed first floor side extensions, together with the roof extensions, by virtue of their design, size, excessive forward and rearward projection, width of the first floor extension to the rear, unbalancing effect of the hip to gable, scale of the rear dormer and cumulative bulk together with the existing extensions, would represent a disproportionate and overly dominant development which would not be subordinate to the original dwellinghouse, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host property, pair of dwellings and the street scene, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS5 of the LB Barnet: Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the LB Barnet: Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016)

Informative(s):

45

1 In accordance with paragraphs 38-57 of the NPPF, the Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions. To assist applicants in submitting development proposals, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has produced planning policies and written guidance to guide applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre- application advice service is also offered.

The applicant did not seek to engage with the LPA prior to the submission of this application through the established formal pre-application advice service. In accordance with paragraph 189 of the NPPF, the applicant is encouraged to utilise this service prior to the submission of any future formal planning applications, in order to engage pro-actively with the LPA to discuss possible solutions to the reasons for refusal.

2 The plans accompanying this application are:

FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-0010 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-0001 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3004 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3002 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3001 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3602 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3003 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3601 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3603 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3604 Planning Statement

OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT

This application has been called in to Planning Committee by Councillor Freedman for the following reasons:

"I would like to offer these material considerations in order for this application to be called in:

In keeping with the character of the area; Although not strictly compliant with planning guidance, the loft and side extension would be in keeping with the character of the area and in particular the street where numerous gable roofs and side extensions of similar subordination exist.

Improvement of street scene through design; The proposed design looks to improve the external aesthetics of the existing dwelling and the poorly constructed 1980s two storey extension which detracts from the character of the building and creates a sharp 90 degree elevation that would be offset by a subordinated side extension in the application. Many of the properties within the street have been modernised and this proposed development will bring the property up to date and tie in with the adapted properties along the street whilst utilising traditional materials, in keeping with the character of 46 the area

No adverse effect on the neighbouring sites; The proposal has been designed to have no adverse effect on the neighbouring sites. There is no loss of light to any dwellings, no overlooking issues are created nor is there any overbearing from the design on other properties land. 7 neighbours have submitted their support for the scheme including those directly next door and opposite the road.

Subordination of design; The proposed design is in keeping with the council guidance and has been set out in order to be subordinate and not over dominating against its neighbouring properties. The key reason for the development is to create a larger family home more suited to modern day living which is encouraged by current national policy.

1. Site Description

The application site contains a two-storey semi-detached single family dwellinghouse with amenity space to the rear, which has been previously extended over two storeys to the side together with an attached garage to the side. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, but eclectic in its overall architectural appearance.

The site is not located in a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings.

2. Site History

Reference: 20/0913/HSE Address: 49 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RU Decision: Refused Decision Date: 17 April 2020 Description: Part single, part two storey side and rear extension. Conversion of the existing garage into habitable room, insertion of window to replace existing garage door Single storey front extension. Roof extension involving gable end, rear dormer window and 3no front facing rooflights

Reference: 20/2690/192 Address: 49 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RU Decision: Lawful Decision Date: 13 July 2020 Description: Single storey front porch extension. Roof extension involving rear dormer window

Reference: 20/2693/HSE Address: 49 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RU Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 13 August 2020 Description: Part single part two storey rear and side extension. Conversion of the existing garage into habitable space, insertion of window to replace existing garage door. Single storey front extension. (amended description)

Reference: 20/3857/HSE Address: 49 Francklyn Gardens, Edgware, HA8 8RU 47 Decision: Pending Consideration Decision Date: No Decision Made. Description: First floor side extension with hipped roof, roof extension involving rear dormer windows and 4no front facing rooflights

3. Proposal

The application seeks permission for first floor side extension with hipped roof, roof extension involving rear dormer windows and 4no front facing rooflights.

The proposed first floor side extension measures 1.42m in width, 9m in depth with a setback of 1m from the front elevation. Together with the ground floor element, it will have a maximum height of 6.1m and an eave height of 4.9m.

The proposed rear dormer is an amendment to the approved rear under 20/2690/192. Based on the approved application, the new proposed rear dormer measures an addition 3.75m in width (8.75m in total), 2.1m in height and 3.1m in depth.

Planning permission has been granted for ''Part single part two storey rear and side extension. Conversion of the existing garage into habitable space, insertion of window to replace existing garage door. Single storey front extension (amended description)'' (Ref: 20/2693/HSE).

It is also noted that the property has previously extended with a part single, part two storey side extension (W02239B) and a garage (W02239) which is flush with the site boundary and extends 5.37 metres to the rear.

4. Public Consultation

Consultation letters were sent to 12 neighbouring properties. 1 response was received throughout the statutory consultation period and is summarised as follows:

- it is disproportionately large and dominant - causes overshadowing - the proposed side extension would contravene both the 25 and the 45 degree rules.

5. Planning Considerations

5.1 Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance

The determination of planning applications is made mindful of Central Government advice and the Local Plan for the area. It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against another.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 19th February 2019. This is a key part of the Governments reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth.

The NPPF states that 'good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates 48 better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities…. being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this'. The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This applies unless any adverse impacts of a development would 'significantly and demonstrably' outweigh the benefits.

The Mayor's London Plan 2016 The London Development Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to 2050. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London and is recognised in the NPPF as part of the development plan.

The London Plan provides a unified framework for strategies that are designed to ensure that all Londoners benefit from sustainable improvements to their quality of life.

The London Plan is currently under review. Whilst capable of being a material consideration, at this early stage very limited weight should be attached to the Draft London Plan. Although this weight will increase as the Draft London Plan progresses to examination stage and beyond, applications should continue to be determined in accordance with the adopted London Plan

Barnet's Local Plan (2012)

Barnet's Local Plan is made up of a suite of documents including the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents. Both were adopted in September 2012.

- Relevant Core Strategy Policies: CS NPPF, CS1, CS5. - Relevant Development Management Policies: DM01, DM02.

The Council's approach to extensions as set out in Policy DM01 is to minimise their impact on the local environment and to ensure that occupiers of new developments as well as neighbouring occupiers enjoy a high standard of amenity. Policy DM01 states that all development should represent high quality design and should be designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers. Policy DM02 states that where appropriate, development will be expected to demonstrate compliance to minimum amenity standards and make a positive contribution to the Borough. The development standards set out in Policy DM02 are regarded as key for Barnet to deliver the highest standards of urban design.

Barnet's Local Plan (Reg 18) 2020

Barnet's Local Plan -Reg 18 Preferred Approach was approved for consultation on 6th January 2020. The Reg 18 document sets out the Council's preferred policy approach together with draft development proposals for 67 sites. It is Barnet's emerging Local Plan. The Local Plan 2012 remains the statutory development plan for Barnet until such stage as the replacement plan is adopted and as such applications should continue to be determined in accordance with the 2012 Local Plan, while noting that account needs to be taken of emerging policies and draft site proposals.

Supplementary Planning Documents

Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted October 2016) 49

- Sets out information for applicants to help them design an extension to their property which would receive favourable consideration by the Local Planning Authority and was the subject of separate public consultation. The SPD states that large areas of Barnet are characterised by relatively low density suburban housing with an attractive mixture of terrace, semi detached and detached houses. The Council is committed to protecting, and where possible enhancing the character of the borough's residential areas and retaining an attractive street scene.

- States that extensions should normally be subordinate to the original house, respect the original building and should not be overly dominant. Extensions should normally be consistent in regard to the form, scale and architectural style of the original building which can be achieved through respecting the proportions of the existing house and using an appropriate roof form.

- In respect of amenity, states that extensions should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure that they do not result in harmful loss of outlook, appear overbearing, or cause an increased sense of enclosure to adjoining properties. They should not reduce light to neighbouring windows to habitable rooms or cause significant overshadowing, and should not look out of place, overbearing or intrusive when viewed from surrounding areas.

Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016)

- Provides detailed guidance that supplements policies in the adopted Local Plan, and sets out how sustainable development will be delivered in Barnet.

5.2 Main issues for consideration

The main issues for consideration in this case are:

- Whether harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the wider locality; - Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

5.3 Assessment of proposals

It is noted that the site photographs that have been used to make an assessment of this application were provided by the applicant.

Impact to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the wider locality

Any scheme for this site will need to respect the character and appearance of the local area, relate appropriately to the sites context and comply with development plan policies in these respects. This will include suitably addressing the requirements of the development plan policies including DM01 and CS05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2012) and policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016).

Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies (Adopted) 2012 states "Development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. Proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets." 50

First floor side extension with hipped roof:

Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted 2016) states side extensions to existing buildings can be unacceptably prominent features in the street scene…..Side extensions should not be more than half the width of the original house….First floor side extensions should normally be set back 1 metre from the front main wall of the existing house. Paragraph 14.16 states Pitched roofs, following the same pitch as the existing roof, will normally be needed for two storey extensions and be set down at least 0.5 metre from the ridge of the main roof.

It is noted that the proposed first floor side extension is identical to the previously refused application which is currently under appeal (Ref: 20/0913/HSE).

In the delegated report (Ref: 20/0913/HSE), it mentioned ''The width of the existing property is 8.43 metres. As result of the existing works, coupled with what is proposed, bringing the total width to 11.19 metres. While it is accepted that extensions would remain as less than half the width of the existing dwelling, and the extension would be set back at first floor level from the front elevation and site boundary, the proposed works in their totality (front, side, rear and loft conversion) together with the existing extensions represent a development at odds with the modest scale of the original dwelling.''

It is noted that this application has removed the front and rear extensions elements from this application. However, is must also be noted that the front and rear extensions have been applied separately which granted planning permission separately (Ref: 20/2693/HSE). As such, it is considered that the totality of the proposal to the application site remains the same, and with similar scale of the first floor side extension as (Ref: 20/0913/HSE), there is insufficient reason to overcome the previous refusal reason and secure planning approval.

Rear dormer with 4no front facing rooflights:

In the same document, Barnet's Residential Design Guidance SPD 2013 also states that dormer windows should be sympathetic to the main roof of the house. Dormer windows are acceptable only if they have a width of not more than half the width of the original roof slope and a height no greater than half of the original roof height. Additionally, the SPD states that adequate roof slope above and below the dormer is required on semi-detached and the dormer extension should be set in at least 1 metre from the party wall, flank wall or chimney stack.

In the delegated report, '' The proposed hip to gable and dormer window would not accord with the above guidance and would therefore not appear as a subordinate or sympathetic addition to the roofslope and dwelling house and pair in general. While it is noted that there are examples of similar schemes achieved under a Householder application, they benefit from permitted development, thus offering a fall-back position. In this case, the permitted development route has not been taken prior to submission and - as a result of the existing roof extensions - may not provide such a fall-back position. Therefore, the proposed roof alterations will be assessed alongside the Residential Design Guide SPD.''

The proposed rear dormer would have a width of 8.75m, 2.1m in height and 3.1m in depth. As it is more than half of the width and half of the depth of the original roof slope, it is not considered that the proposal is acceptable, sympathetic in design and subordinate in appearance.

51 It has been noted that the proposed first floor side extension and dormer window would not be unique to 49 Francklyn Gardens. However, it most also be noted that other existing full rear dormer windows granted planning consent through Certificate of Lawfulness. As such, it is considered that the Council has taken consistent approach to assess applications across time.

Impact to amenities of neighbouring occupiers

It will be important that any scheme addresses the relevant development plan policies (for example policy DM01 of the Barnet Local Plan and policy 7.6 of the London Plan) in respect of the protection of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This will include taking a full account of all neighbouring sites.

With regard to Paragraph 14.4 of the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016), extensions to properties should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure they do not result in harmful loss of light or overshadowing of adjoining properties (particularly loss of light to main windows serving principal rooms such as living or dining rooms), loss of outlook, or sense of enclosure or overbearing impact on adjoining properties.

With regards to 51 Francklyn Gardens, this property is next to the host dwelling on the right. The potential harm from the first-floor side extension would be that the outlook, sunlight and privacy from the proposed height and depth development. At first floor 1 No. window is proposed to serve a bathroom. In the event of an approval, a condition would be imposed to obscure glaze this opening to ensure overlooking and loss of privacy would not occur. Overshadowing concern have been raised regarding the first floor extension, however, given that there is a 0.6m setback from the side, it is considered that it the potential overshadowing problem would be kept at minimum level.

As for 47 Francklyn Gardens, this property is next to the host dwelling on the left. As the proposed extension is located on the right-hand side of No. 49, it is considered the proposed outbuilding will not cause potential amenity impact to neighbouring residents.

It is considered that the proposed rear dormer window facing its own garden would not cause residential amenity problem to the neighbours.

A number of properties in Francklyn Gardens have rooflights installed and can be done under permitted Development. As such the impact upon the street scene and amenity cause by the proposed rooflights is considered acceptable.

5.4 Response to Public Consultation

As addressed in the main report.

6. Equality and Diversity Issues

The proposal does not conflict with either Barnet Council's Equalities Policy or the commitments set in the Equality Scheme and supports the Council in meeting its statutory equality responsibilities.

7. Conclusion

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that the proposed 52 development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and wider locality. The development is also considered to result in harm to the amenities of No.47 by way of the projection of the proposed single storey rear extension to their nearest habitable room window. This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

8. In the event of an appeal, the following conditions should be attached:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-0010 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-0001 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3004 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3002 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3001 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3602 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3003 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3601 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3603 FRYN1-CBLS-00-ZZ-DR-A-3604 Planning Statement

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

2. This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s).

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and surrounding area in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012).

53

54