Three self-contained flats at 52 Greenfield Gardens, London NW2

What was proposed

The application sought to retain three flats, parking, refuse and cycle facilities, garden alterations, fencing, a path and an ancillary outbuilding.

“Proposal: Retention of change of use from 2no. self contained flats into 3no. self contained flats. Provision of associated refuse storage, cycle parking and off street car parking. Alterations to rear garden layout. Retention of existing neighbouring fencing. New internal fencing and new foot path to be used for maintenance purposes. Retention of outbuilding and use of rear outbuilding for ancillary purposes to the first floor flat. (Part Retrospective)”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey detached house among mainly detached and semi-detached 1930s homes, outside a conservation area and without listed status.

“Site Description The subject property is a two storey detached house, close to the junction with Cricklewood Lane. Greenfield Gardens consists of detached and semi-detached properties. They were constructed in the 1930s. The property is not listed nor in a conservation area, and there are no tree preservation orders on site. The street is primarily in single family dwelling use, with the south west end occupied by a school.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier decisions included approval for two flats, refusals and appeals involving flats, enforcement notices, and a withdrawn application concerning the garden and outbuilding.

“Reference: 17/2277/192 Address: 52 Greenfield Gardens Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 13.06.2017 Description: Conversion of existing property into HMO to provide 5no self-contained flats.”

“Reference: 21/5555/FUL Address: 52 Greenfield Gardens Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 13.10.2023 Description: Alterations to rear garden layout. Retention of existing garden boundary treatments. New foot path to be used for maintenance purposes. Reduction in garden gate height. Erection of cycle storage. Use of rear outbuilding for ancillary purposes to the first floor flat…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the character, neighbours’ living conditions, future accommodation and parking acceptable with conditions.

“Main issues for consideration The main issues for consideration in this case are: - Principle of an additional flat; - Whether harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the wider locality; - Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. - Provision of adequate accommodation for future occupiers; - Highways and parking.”

“Conclusion Having taken all material considerations and the recent planning history into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposed development would on balance have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and the locality.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Letters from seven people raised concerns about waste, parking, noise, family housing, raised garden levels, enforcement, fencing and the outbuilding.

“Public Consultation Consultation letters were sent to 83 neighbouring properties. 12 sets of correspondence have been received, comprising letters of objection from seven separate people.”

“The objections received can be summarised as follows: - An increase in waste and rubbish - Retrospective application disregards the planning system - Increased parking pressure. Greenfield Gardens is already a 'rat run' - The street is characterised by family dwellings - The layout is little changed from five flats - An increase in noise and disturbance from the number of occupants - A more transient and temporary population - Why does 52 not take the advice of the rejected…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the report and addendum, and Brian Smith addressed the committee in objection.

What members decided

Members questioned the speakers and officers before rejecting the officer recommendation and considering the raised garden, fencing and outbuilding height unacceptable.

“The Committee then had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and Officers.”

“Councillor Claire Farrier proposed a motion to refuse the application due to the committee members agreeing that the effect of the raised ground level including fencing and overall height of the outbuilding is having an unacceptable/detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Councillor Lachhya Gurung seconded the motion.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the raised garden levels, associated fencing and resulting outbuilding height harmed the neighbouring property’s visual amenities.

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The development, by reason of the raised garden levels, associated fencing and resultant height of the outbuilding, is detrimental to the visual amenities of the occupiers of 50 Greenfield Gardens, contrary to policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the adopted Barnet Local Plan (2025) and the adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).”

Minutes