Replacement of the front and rear windows and rear French doors with sealed double glazed units, and replacement of rainwater gutters and downpipes and soil vent pipes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 05 November 2025 by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000424 11 Holyoake Walk, East Finchley, Barnet, London N2 0JX • 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 Maryla and Nicholas Brill against the decision the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/1323/RCU. • The development proposed is replacement of the front and rear windows and rear French doors with sealed double glazed units, and replacement of rainwater gutters and downpipes and soil vent pipes. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of the front and rear windows and rear French doors with sealed double glazed units, and replacement of rainwater gutters and downpipes and soil vent pipes at 11 Holyoake Walk, East Finchley, Barnet, London N2 0JX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1323/RCU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: 11HW Loc 01; 12829-SEC2 REV A; 13108-01 REV A; 13108-02; 13108-03 REV A; 13108-04; 13108-05 REV A; 13108-06 REV A. Preliminary Matters 2. In my above decision, I have utilised the description of development within the decision notice rather than that provided in the application form. The decision notice description provides some further detail that reflects what is described in the appellants’ submitted evidence. I have however deleted reference to “retrospective” as this does not relate to a form of development. 3. The application form indicates that the works subject of this appeal have already been completed. I have therefore determined the appeal scheme as being fully retrospective in nature. 4. I am aware of other ongoing planning enforcement appeals in relation to the same site1. Those appeals are the subject of a separate process and therefore have no bearing on my determination of this section 78 appeal, which I have considered on its own planning merits having regard to the submitted evidence before me. 1 APP/N5090/C/25/3369779; APP/N5090/C/25/3369780 Appeal Decision 6000424 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, including the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area (HGSCA). Reasons 6. The appeal site (No 11) and its surrounds is within the HGSCA. No 11 comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling at the end of a small residential cul-de-sac. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 7. The HGSCA encapsulates the Hampstead Garden Suburb, first constructed in 1907 and mainly completed by the 1930s. From what I have seen and read, the significance of the HGSCA as a designated heritage asset is derived from its layout and design as a utopian garden settlement. During my site visit, I was able to appreciate how the quality of its architecture and landscape environment has endured to make the HGSCA and the Suburb a very desirable place to live in. 8. The Suburb is internationally recognised as one of the finest examples of early twentieth century domestic architecture and town planning. The HGSCA Character Appraisal Statement (CAS) describes it as a predominantly residential area, with residences ranging from flats to large mansions. The Suburb has a generally spacious and verdant feel, as densities are low by modern standards. There are many mature trees along the streets and hedges enclosing residential boundaries and narrow footpaths (twittens). 9. Holyoake Walk is within Character Area 10 (Ossulton Way and Hill Top) as defined in the CAS. It is a mainly residential area developed between 1927 and the mid- 1930s. Residences are mainly in the form of semi-detached houses and there are also maisonettes, flats and some detached dwellings. The overall area has an architectural variety that reflects the changing economic circumstances and building practices during its construction period, although the individual streets reflect their specific architect designer. 10. Holyoake Walk has a secluded feel, but is also dissected by a twitten leading to other residential roads. The semi-detached pairs have balanced proportions, with some variation to front porch design and fenestration. No 11’s elevations contain a mixture of red brick and white render, and the dwelling is enclosed and surrounded by hedgerow and shrubbery. Such features are well-preserved and are also apparent at other residences along Holyoake Walk. No 11 and its setting within the cul-de-sac therefore form a positive contribution to the significance of the HGSCA. 11. Most of the HGSCA is subject of an Article 4 Direction which allows the Council to control minor works to retain the HGSCA’s special qualities. The HGSCA Design Guidance also advises that many such works also require legal consent from the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust (HGST). 12. The officer report raises no objection to the retention of all the existing front and rear windows and the rear French door of No. 11. The main parties are in dispute in respect of the rainwater gutters, downpipes and soil vent pipes as installed. This has replaced the original cast iron rainwater fittings with a type of cast-iron effect Appeal Decision 6000424 3 uPVC material and design provided under the Brett Martin Cascade range, and are coloured black. 13. Use of this material for drainage goods and fittings was resisted by the Council’s Senior Heritage Officer. The Council also sought appropriate expertise from the HGST’s Architectural Adviser, who commented that the Trust regularly approves the Brett Martin Cascade range across the Suburb, and would approve this at No 11. As the Trust also has legal powers to maintain and preserve the present character and amenities of the Suburb, I also give some weight to the Trust’s indicative support of this element of the appeal scheme. 14. I accept that the HGSCA Design Guidance seeks to resist uPVC materials and retain original cast iron rainwater gutters, pipes and plumbing stacks, to be replaced only where necessary in the same material. However, in the specific circumstances of No 11, I have found that the replaced drainage pipes do not disfigure the original appearance of this dwelling. 15. Their slim profiles in comparison to the surrounding retained cast iron drainage features, along with their uninterrupted routing, avoid harmful clutter on the outside of the building. The material used effectively mimics traditional cast iron detailing and does not appear at odds within No 11 and its setting. 16. I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme does not harm the character and appearance of No 11 and the surrounding area, and the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved and its significance as a designated heritage asset would not be harmed. Allowing this appeal thus avoids conflict with the statutory presumption under s72(1) of the Act. 17. It follows that the appeal scheme complies with Policies CDH01 and CDH08 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (adopted 2025). These policies require, amongst other things, development to use materials of a suitable quality and appearance to respect local character and setting, and conservation of Barnet’s designated heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Conditions 18. A condition specifying the approved plan is necessary in the interests of certainty. For further clarity, I have added reference to the submitted location plan. I have deleted reference to the Heritage, Design and Access Statement (March 2025), as that document does not form an approved plan. As the appeal scheme is fully retrospective in nature, it is not necessary to impose conditions requiring matching materials and style. Conclusion 19. For the above reasons, I have found that the appeal scheme is in accordance with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed. R Cahalane INSPECTOR