Planning application · Barnet
24/0864/FUL.
White House Tenterden Grove London NW4 1TD
Full / Other Planning at White House Tenterden Grove London NW4 1TD, received 1 Mar 2024 — refused on 2 Aug 2024 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarnet profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Aug 2024
22 wks
Decision time
14 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 linked
3
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Barnet planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition of existing building and erection of a detached two storey building with rooms in the roofspace and basement comprising 7no. self-contained flats with basement level parking and associated turn table car lift and solar panels to roof. Provision of amenity space, refuse and cycle storage
Reference
24/0864/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW4 1TD
Ward
Council
Received
1 Mar 2024
Target date
26 Apr 2024
Decision date
2 Aug 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/0864/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW4 1TD
Ward
Council
Received
1 Mar 2024
Target date
26 Apr 2024
Decision date
2 Aug 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Barnet portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 2 Aug 2024, determined by the planning committee — 22 weeks from submission (14 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
1 Mar 2024
Application received
26 Apr 2024
Statutory target date
2 Aug 2024
Committee decision: Refused
1 Mar 2024
Application received
26 Apr 2024
Statutory target date
2 Aug 2024
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed building, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing, height, depth, design
and siting, would amount to over-development, appearing as an unduly
disproportionate and visually discordant addition, incongruous to the established
pattern of development and detrimental to the character and appearance of the
application site and surrounding area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan
(2021), Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the
Development Management Policies DPD (2012), and the Residential Design
Guidance SPD (2016)
2
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing, height, depth and
siting, would appear unduly overbearing and result in a harmful loss of outlook,
increased sense of enclosure and overshadowing to the property known as
Stanmari, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenities of neighbouring
occupiers, contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies
DM01 and DM02 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policies
CS1 and CS5 of the Council's Core Strategy (2012) and the Residential Design
Guidance SPD (2016)
3
The proposed development by reason of its siting and design, would provide an
unacceptably poor level of outlook for the habitable rooms of Flat 1 and bedrooms
of Flats 2, 3, 4 and 5, as well as overlooking from first floor bedrooms to ground
floor bedrooms and ground floor to basement level bedrooms, resulting in a sub-
standard quality of accommodation, to the detriment of the residential amenity of
future occupiers, contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy
DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policies CS1 and
CS5 of the Council's Core Strategy (2012), the Residential Design Guidance (2016)
and Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2016)
4
No Preliminary Ecological Appraisal or Preliminary Roost Assessment has been
undertaken and as such the Local Planning Authority is therefore unable to properly
assess the likely presence/absence of protected species, including bats, and
therefore any potential impact on protected species and their habitats. In the
absence of detailed information it is considered that the proposed development
could cause undue harm to protected species contrary to the duty conferred by
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, policy
CSNPPF of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), as well as policies DM01 and
DM16 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policy G6
and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023).
5
The proposed development, by virtue of the addition of a new basement car park
and associated lift, is likely to necessitate root severance, having a significant and
unacceptable impact on trees situated within the Hendon Preparatory School and
without the support of Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan,
the proposal may have detrimental impact on the long term health and viability of
these existing mature trees, contrary to Policy CS5, CS7, DM01, DM16 of the
Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the
Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016), Policy G6 and
G7 of London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023)
1
The proposed building, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing, height, depth, design
and siting, would amount to over-development, appearing as an unduly
disproportionate and visually discordant addition, incongruous to the established
pattern of development and detrimental to the character and appearance of the
application site and surrounding area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan
(2021), Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the
Development Management Policies DPD (2012), and the Residential Design
Guidance SPD (2016)
2
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing, height, depth and
siting, would appear unduly overbearing and result in a harmful loss of outlook,
increased sense of enclosure and overshadowing to the property known as
Stanmari, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenities of neighbouring
occupiers, contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies
DM01 and DM02 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policies
CS1 and CS5 of the Council's Core Strategy (2012) and the Residential Design
Guidance SPD (2016)
3
The proposed development by reason of its siting and design, would provide an
unacceptably poor level of outlook for the habitable rooms of Flat 1 and bedrooms
of Flats 2, 3, 4 and 5, as well as overlooking from first floor bedrooms to ground
floor bedrooms and ground floor to basement level bedrooms, resulting in a sub-
standard quality of accommodation, to the detriment of the residential amenity of
future occupiers, contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy
DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policies CS1 and
CS5 of the Council's Core Strategy (2012), the Residential Design Guidance (2016)
and Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2016)
Show all 5 rows
4
No Preliminary Ecological Appraisal or Preliminary Roost Assessment has been
undertaken and as such the Local Planning Authority is therefore unable to properly
assess the likely presence/absence of protected species, including bats, and
therefore any potential impact on protected species and their habitats. In the
absence of detailed information it is considered that the proposed development
could cause undue harm to protected species contrary to the duty conferred by
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, policy
CSNPPF of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), as well as policies DM01 and
DM16 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policy G6
and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023).
5
The proposed development, by virtue of the addition of a new basement car park
and associated lift, is likely to necessitate root severance, having a significant and
unacceptable impact on trees situated within the Hendon Preparatory School and
without the support of Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan,
the proposal may have detrimental impact on the long term health and viability of
these existing mature trees, contrary to Policy CS5, CS7, DM01, DM16 of the
Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the
Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016), Policy G6 and
G7 of London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023)
Policies cited
D3CS5DM01D6DM02CS1DM16G6G7NPPFCS7
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
3
In support
0
Total comments
4
Objections
3
In support
0
Total comments
4
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.