Appeal 3286601

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant refers to a new drawing submitted with the appeal showing screening and a reduced angle to 25 degrees of the roof of the proposed new garage/workshop. This drawing has not been the subject of consultation and I consider that the Council and the public would be prejudiced if I treated that drawing as an application plan. Accordingly, I have made my decision on the application plans which were submitted to the Council and consulted upon.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupants of [address] in respect of outlook.

The appeal site is located on the corner of [address] and [address] within a residential area close to the [name]. There are some commercial uses nearby but the predominant use of the immediate area is residential and the predominant form of housing is semi-detached properties. The appeal site is semi-detached with its semi-pair being no.[address].

There is an existing single storey garage/outbuilding serving no.311 with its access off [address]. It sits in the rear garden at a lower level than the main house. There are some steps down to the vehicular access and the garage if walking from the main house.

The proposed development is to replace the garage with a larger structure which would have two vehicle spaces, two garage doors and a workshop. The footprint of the new building would be about 5.8m deep and about 8.4m wide. The eaves height would be about 2.5m, the roof would be hipped and the ridge height would be about 4.2m. The rear garden of no. [site address] is not large and notwithstanding the resulting development being at a lower level, the building would dominate that part of the garden owing to its bulk and mass. It would be disproportionate to, and incongruous with, the main domestic dwelling. It would not appear as if it were an ancillary residential building owing to its height, scale, and mass.

Being situated on a corner it would be visible from public vantage points. Given its dimensions, any landscaping scheme compatible with the suburban residential area in which it sits is unlikely to successfully conceal it. Even if it did, it would not overcome the harm I have identified above to the host dwelling.

I conclude therefore that the proposed development would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. It would be contrary to saved policy ENV39 of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2004), policy CS01 of the [name] (2012) and policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Living Conditions of Occupants of [address]

[address] is the semi-pair of the appeal property. It has a relatively modest-sized rear garden, of about 15m in length, and it has been extended at the rear. The proposed building would be situated very close to the common boundary and would extend for a length of about 8.[address] to that boundary. Whilst there would be a difference in levels and there is boundary treatment in place, I consider that the proposed development would nevertheless be an overbearing presence and would interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the modest rear garden space available to those neighbours.

On this issue, I conclude that the proposal would unduly harm the living conditions of the occupants of [address] by reason of loss of outlook. It would be contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and policies ENV39 and H9 of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan (2004).

Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. [name].C.