# Car park between Castle Mews and 7 Castle Road, North Finchley - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Wilson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007373 - **Application reference:** 25/0632/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Redevelopment of office car park for 20 car-free dwellings with landscaping, access and cycle parking - **Homes:** 20 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, T6.1, Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (March 2025) CDH01, TRC03, Residential Design Guidance SPD 2016 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions (outlook), disabled persons parking - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, l2-substantial-weight, brownfield, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-balance-wording, inconsistent-weighting, pd-rights-removed, drafting-slip ## Summary Twenty car-free houses and flats on a backland office car park in North Finchley, refused by Barnet on design, outlook and disabled parking. Allowed. The inspector found no harm to character or outlook; the only conflict was the absence of disabled bays (London Plan T6.1), limited in effect because blue badge holders can still obtain on-street permits. Substantial L2 weight for reusing an underutilised car park and the S4 presumption justified a decision contrary to the plan. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the new Framework, and I have taken any comments received into account" (DL ¶2). - **Character: NO HARM.** Car-free layout gives "a large pedestrian walkway and open spaces throughout which means that while there are 20 houses proposed, it would not appear as an overdevelopment" (DL ¶6). Framework design policies (DP3) not cited on this issue. - **Outlook: NO HARM.** Barrel-vaulted roof sloping to boundary, deep neighbouring gardens and outbuildings (DL ¶¶9–11). - **Disabled parking — T6.1 / TRC03: CONFLICT, limited harm.** "the obligation would not prevent blue badge holders from applying for a parking permit … there is suitable availability for on-street parking" (DL ¶15); "The magnitude of harm from this conflict would be limited" (DL ¶16). - **L2 and S4.** "Policy L2 … gives substantial weight to making better use of vacant and underutilised land such as the appeal site. Policy S4 … also states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4 balance, with an internal inconsistency: the policy conflict is given "significant weight" (DL ¶20) though the harm is "limited" (DL ¶19). "the limited harm … would be outweighed by the substantial weight attributed to the use of underutilised brownfield land, the site's location within a settlement and the affordable housing secured by a Unilateral Undertaking. Accordingly … Policy S4 of the Framework is a material consideration which indicates that the benefits of the scheme substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL ¶22). The inspector states the test the wrong way round (benefits must substantially outweigh) — a stricter test than S4 requires, so the error does not undermine the outcome. ## What made the difference The Council's design and outlook objections did not hold up on site: the low roof profile, deep neighbouring gardens and the open space made possible by the car-free layout. That left only the disabled parking shortfall, and its practical effect was blunted by on-street permits for blue badge holders. With the L2(1)(b) car-park example ("building on … car parks … which are no longer required") giving substantial weight, the S4 balance was easy. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(b) substantial weight applies to redeveloping an underutilised private car park for housing (DL ¶21). - A policy conflict over disabled parking can be outweighed where blue badge holders retain on-street permit access (DL ¶¶15–16, 22). - A car-free layout can be credited with freeing space for landscaping and open space, countering overdevelopment arguments (DL ¶6). - Drafting slip: S4 applied as "benefits … substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL ¶22), inverting the S4 wording; also significant weight to a conflict with only limited harm (DL ¶¶19–20). - PD rights removed as "exceptionally necessary" given density and backland location (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **S4: pass.** within settlement; limited harm from disabled parking shortfall does not outweigh benefits; inspector phrases test inverted as "benefits … substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL 21-22) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** underutilised brownfield car park; substantial weight (DL 21-22) - **DP3: pass.** not cited; character found acceptable under London Plan D3 / CDH01 (DL 4-8) - **London Plan T6.1, LP TRC03: conflict (significant weight).** no disabled persons parking (3% requirement); magnitude of harm limited because blue badge holders can still get on-street permits (DL 14-16, 19-20) - **HO8: benefit.** affordable housing secured by UU; amount and weight not stated (DL 22) ## Key facts - Site is an office car park, laid to hardstanding, in a dense two-storey terraced residential area - Car-free scheme with permit-free obligation; two disabled bays removed at Council's request for lack of room - Blue badge holders not excluded from permits; on-street parking available nearby - Undisputed that site is underutilised brownfield land and residential use acceptable in principle - Housing land supply figure not stated - Parties given opportunity to comment on 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007373 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c07c5559-1c84-4a7f-8db9-5c85efb9f33f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007373.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.