# Rear of 2 High Street, Edgware (nine flats above a garage)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young
- **Authority:** Barnet (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012289
- **Application reference:** 25/4795/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Three storeys above an existing single-storey car repair garage to provide 9 flats (a four-storey building), with amenity space, refuse and cycle storage and a car park
- **Homes:** 9
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(1), L2(1)(d)(i)
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, Barnet Local Plan 2025 CDH01
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of neighbours, flood risk and drainage
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, upward-extension, l2-airspace, l2-1-d, fallback, living-conditions, small-scheme, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Nine flats in three new storeys over a backland garage in Edgware, one storey more than an extant permission for seven flats. The inspector gave the fallback significant weight but found the fourth storey would make the building jarring in its transitional setting and overbearing for neighbours. Policy L2's substantial weight for airspace development was cut to little weight because the scheme was not consistent with the street scene. Under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the amended Framework (DL ¶3).
- **Fallback.** "I attach significant weight to that fallback position, having regard to the realistic prospect of its implementation" (DL ¶10). But the appeal scheme "would be more harmful than the fallback permission in terms of the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers" (DL ¶33).
- **Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "its height, bulk and overtly boxy form would create an abrupt and jarring transition, appearing incongruous within its setback setting" (DL ¶12).
- **Living conditions: HARM (significant).** "the cumulative effect of the proposal's increased height, breadth and massing would result in an oppressive and overbearing form of development" (DL ¶17).
- **Plan weight (Annex A ¶2).** "I attribute substantial weight to the development plan policies considered as part of this submission" (DL ¶31).
- **L2(1)(d) airspace: little weight.** "However, such development should be consistent with the overall street scene. Accordingly, I attribute little weight to the proposal in this regard." (DL ¶35).
- **Flood risk.** New evidence first submitted at appeal and not scrutinised by consultees was given moderate weight and was not determinative (DL ¶24-25).

## Planning balance
Section 38(6) first, with the plan policies at substantial weight, then S4(1): "Taken together, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework." (DL ¶37). DP3(1) is quoted in the balance but DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) are not used; the design harm is weighed as ordinary harm.

## What made the difference
The extra storey over the consented three-storey scheme. The fallback fixed the baseline, so the benefits it could equally deliver counted for little and the comparison turned on the added height. A scheme within the fallback envelope would have faced no character objection.

## Transferable points
- A fallback permission sets the baseline for both harm and benefit: benefits the fallback would also deliver attract only limited weight (DL ¶10, ¶26, ¶33).
- L2(1)(d) substantial weight for building in airspace depends on consistency with the overall street scene; where that fails the weight falls to little (DL ¶35).
- Design and amenity policies consistent with the Framework keep substantial weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶31).
- Absence of harm is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶28).
- Technical evidence first produced at appeal and untested by consultees carries reduced weight (DL ¶24-25).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(1): conflict.** DP3(1) quoted in the balance (DL 36); four-storey flat-roofed block fails to mediate between the varied High Street and two-storey suburban streets behind (DL 11-14); DP3(3) not cited
- **P3: harm (significant weight).** mapped: overbearing sense of enclosure and loss of outlook for 2 High Street, Elmer Gardens and Garratt Road; significant harm to amenity (DL 16-18)
- **L2(1)(d)(i): fail (limited weight).** airspace development gets substantial weight only if consistent with the overall street scene; it is not, so "little weight" (DL 35)
- **L3(2)(a): benefit (limited weight).** density to be assessed against existing character subject to DP3; "little weight" in favour (DL 36)
- **HO7: benefit.** mapped: additional dwellings acknowledged, no weight word and HO7 not cited (DL 33)
- **F7: neutral.** mapped: surface water flood risk; flats above ground floor; flood risk assessment and drainage strategy first submitted at appeal and not scrutinised, so moderate weight to that evidence; not determinative (DL 19-25)
- **Transitional(2): accord (substantial weight).** Annex A paragraph 2 paraphrased; plan design and amenity policies consistent with the Framework, so substantial weight (DL 31)
- **S3(1)(c): not-engaged.** quoted; proposal does not accord with the plan (DL 32-33)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by character and living-conditions harm (DL 34, 37)

## Key facts
- Fallback permission 25/1099/FUL for two added storeys and 7 flats (a three-storey building) given significant weight as realistically implementable (DL 9-10)
- The appeal scheme adds a fourth storey, about 3 m more height (DL 10)
- Site set back behind the High Street, between the commercial centre and two-storey housing on Elmer Gardens and Garratt Road (DL 7-8, 11)
- Benefits of tidying the site and using land more effectively are equally achievable through the fallback, so limited weight (DL 26)
- Absence of harm on ecology, highways, principle and future occupiers' living conditions treated as neutral (DL 28)
- Housing land supply not stated
- Parties invited to comment on the amended Framework (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012289
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2bfda9fb-06de-47c1-90e8-d1370abf3c41

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012289.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.