A DILAPIDATED shop site in North Finchley is no nearer being redeveloped after a Government inspector threw out the latest plans.

Two appeals against earlier Barnet Council decisions to refuse planning permission for the old Furniture Land building, in High Road, were rejected on Wednesday because of a lack of garden and amenity space.

The improvements would have involved demolishing the three storey art deco building and developing up to a five storey block with as many as 72 separate flats.

Residents in the area have long admitted something needs to be done with the “eyesore” building, but have regularly opposed plans for flats on the site, claiming the size and scale are excessive for the area.

In the 12 page appeals decision, inspector Chris Frost noted the opponents considered the plans “an alien form of development, unrelated to the surroundings that fail to take the opportunity to enhance the character of the location”.

He said the main considerations were about whether the design's appearance, character and quality fit in with the area, whether living conditions for neighbours would be affected, if the living conditions of tenants was appropriate, and whether adequate contributions were being made to improve the surrounding social and physical infrastructure.

Mr Frost said there was “no overriding reason” to reject the scheme based on the general appearance, and added: “I accept that in each case the proposed building would make a significant and even prominent contribution to the street scene.

“However, it seems that this could be said of the existing building, which appears to be generally well regarded (although it is now dilapidated).

“The variety of materials proposed would draw attention to a new and relatively prominent addition to the High Road but the contrasts would be deliberate and generally well organised.”

Council bosses rejected the two sets of plans put forward by Jardine (north London) Ltd. in October last year and then again in February.

Space would be provided for up to 72 cars, and 150 cycles, as well as a a library, or medical facility on the ground floor.

Mr Frost said the two schemes though are “characterised by a shortfall in the provision of gardens or amenity space” and would impact on the privacy of neighbours.

In rejecting the larger application, he said: “There are shortcomings associated with this scheme in terms of its design and appearance, its effect on living conditions and the shortfall of garden or amenity space.”

On the scaled down, second application, he recognised work had been made to address some of the obvious shortcomings of the first plan, but again rejected it saying: “Inadequacies remain in relation to garden or amenity space and, in the case of some flats, this would result in the absence of balconies or poor accessibility to on-site communal areas.

“The offer of contributions would not address these problems.”