New front hardstanding and vehicular access to provide off-street parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2025 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000087 35 George Crescent, Muswell Hill, Barnet, London N10 1AL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Jason Wong against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/4421/RCU. • The development proposed is new front hardstanding and vehicular access to provide off-street parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new front hardstanding and vehicular access to provide off-street parking at 35 George Crescent, Muswell Hill, Barnet, London N10 1AL, in accordance with the terms of the application ref 24/4421/RCU and subject to the following conditions: 1) This permission relates to the following approved drawings: Location Plan - 1:1250 and Existing Site Plan and Section – Drawing No A100, R01. 2) i) Within three months of the date of this permission, a landscaping scheme for the frontage, together with a timetable for its implementation and maintenance details shall be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. ii) Once approved in writing by the local planning authority, the approved landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable and thereafter maintained. Preliminary Matters 2. For the purposes of my Decision and because this succinctly describes the proposal, I have used the Council’s description of the proposed development, as set out in its decision. However, and because ‘retrospective application’ is not an act of development, I have removed this term from my formal Decision. 3. I observed that the new front hardstanding has been undertaken and its design and form reflects the submitted drawings. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted drawings and my observations. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6000087 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling. The dwellings along this road are set back behind modest frontages. In the main these frontages are open and some are, in part, enclosed by low boundary treatments. The treatment of these frontages varies. Some incorporate areas of hardstanding to allow for vehicle parking whilst others are soft landscaped. There are also some which incorporate a combination of hardstanding areas and soft landscaping. Also, and whilst most frontages are generally level with the highway, due to local topography some are on lower ground relative to the highway and others slope up from the highway. All these factors contribute to a varied street scene. 6. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance – Supplementary Planning Document, includes guidance on the treatment of front gardens and vehicular accesses. This encourages a balance between hard and soft landscaping and highlights the need to maintain permeability to address drainage issues. 7. The proposed scheme is for an entirely hard landscaped frontage. This would mainly comprise permeable block paving, which in itself is not an uncharacteristic material for the area. 8. The new area of hardstanding has been raised so that this is at the same level as the adjoining highway. Even so, a pathway to the front door and side entrance of the appeal property are retained. Also, the height of the hardstanding does not extend above the cill of the front window. For these reasons and because of the relatively limited depth of the frontage of the appeal property, the proposed hardstanding is not visually dominant. The creation of the raised frontage has resulted in retaining structures on either side of the frontage. However, in views from the north, the extent of this is largely screened by existing landscaping at 33 George Crescent. From the south, the retaining wall along the shared boundary with 37 George Crescent (‘No. 37’) is exposed. Nevertheless, because of its modest height and in the context of the hard surfaced frontage of No. 37, this is not unduly prominent. 9. Furthermore, the appellant is willing to accept a condition to introduce soft landscaping to the frontage. This would soften the appearance of the proposed hardstanding and assist this to assimilate with the wider street scene. 10. For the above reasons, and subject to some new landscaping, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (September 2012) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Together, these policies require proposals to be of high quality that preserve or enhance local character. Conditions 11. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Because the development has already commenced it is not necessary to specify the standard implementation condition. However, I have specified a condition relating to the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the provision and implementation of a landscaping scheme is necessary to enhance the character and appearance of the development and area. Appeal Decision 6000087 3 Conclusion 12. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Aqbal INSPECTOR