Planning application · Barnet
24/1595/RCU.
Full / Other Planning at 137 Marsh Lane London NW7 4EY, received 22 Apr 2024 — refused on 18 Jun 2024 (delegated, Keshni Patel-Rayani).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarnet profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Jun 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
1
Objections
1 in support
Yes
Appeal
Dismissed
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?
Erection of a rear outbuilding (Retrospective Application)
Reference
24/1595/RCU
Type
Retention/Continued Use
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW7 4EY
Ward
Council
Received
22 Apr 2024
Validated
23 Apr 2024
Target date
18 Jun 2024
Decision date
18 Jun 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/1595/RCU
Type
Retention/Continued Use
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW7 4EY
Ward
Council
Received
22 Apr 2024
Validated
23 Apr 2024
Target date
18 Jun 2024
Decision date
18 Jun 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
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 18 Jun 2024, delegated decision by Keshni Patel-Rayani — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Apr 2024
Application received
23 Apr 2024
Application validated
18 Jun 2024
Statutory target date
18 Jun 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Keshni Patel-Rayani
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Dismissed
22 Apr 2024
Application received
23 Apr 2024
Application validated
18 Jun 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
18 Jun 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Keshni Patel-Rayani
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The as built outbuilding would by reason of its scale, mass, design, materials and
siting located within the Green Belt would constitute an inappropriate form of
development which would harm the openness of and intrude into the rural character
of the Green Belt. No case for very special circumstances has been demonstrated
to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The
proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the aims and purpose of the
Green Belt. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to preserve the special
architectural and historical interest of this Grade II listed building. The proposal
would result in substantial harm to the overall significance, character and coherent
appearance of the Grade II listed building and its setting and detrimental to the
character and appearance and visual amenity of the host site and the surrounding
Mill Hill Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS1
and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012), Policy DM01, DM06
and DM15 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (September
2012), Policy G2 of The London Plan 2021 and paragraphs 142-154 of the National
Planning Policy Framework. (NPPF (2021) and Mill Hill Conservation Area
Character Appraisal Statement.
1
The as built outbuilding would by reason of its scale, mass, design, materials and
siting located within the Green Belt would constitute an inappropriate form of
development which would harm the openness of and intrude into the rural character
of the Green Belt. No case for very special circumstances has been demonstrated
to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The
proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the aims and purpose of the
Green Belt. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to preserve the special
architectural and historical interest of this Grade II listed building. The proposal
would result in substantial harm to the overall significance, character and coherent
appearance of the Grade II listed building and its setting and detrimental to the
character and appearance and visual amenity of the host site and the surrounding
Mill Hill Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS1
and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012), Policy DM01, DM06
and DM15 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (September
2012), Policy G2 of The London Plan 2021 and paragraphs 142-154 of the National
Planning Policy Framework. (NPPF (2021) and Mill Hill Conservation Area
Character Appraisal Statement.
Policies cited
CS1CS7DM01DM06DM15G2National Planning Policy Framework 154NPPF
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
1
Total comments
2
Objections
1
In support
1
Total comments
2
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
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.