Appeal 3286779

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the surrounding area, and; • The living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with regard to outlook.

The appeal site is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling with bay windows. The property has a landscaped rear garden, which leads into an outbuilding situated at the end of the curtilage. Vehicular access is possible via the rear access lane, which runs between the properties on [address] and [address] and is lined with outbuildings on either side. The development seeks to replace the existing outbuilding with a single-storey timber clad outbuilding with mono-pitched roof.

On the site visit it was observed that the outbuildings of neighbouring properties are of a similar size or smaller than that which currently exists at [site address] . Although the footprint of the new outbuilding would not result in a significant increase from that of the existing building, the adoption of a higher, mono-pitched roof would mean that the cumulative scale of the new outbuilding is significantly larger. Therefore, the size increase would cause the proposed development to appear out of keeping with the prevailing character of outbuildings in the area. Furthermore, due to the siting of the development, which is visible on approach from the rear access lane as well as from neighbouring properties, it would be visually intrusive and therefore would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The highest point of the mono-pitched roof, which would incline towards the rear garden of [address], is higher than that of the existing outbuildings at both the appeal site and abutting property. The additional bulk at this height would appear dominant from the neighbouring curtilage and would be disproportionately sized within its immediate setting. Furthermore, surrounding outbuildings are generally pitched or flat roofed and the mono-pitched design would appear incongruous.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would not comply with Policy CS 14 of the London Borough of Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (CS), adopted 2011, and Policy DM D2 of Merton Council’s Sites and Policies Plan (SPP), adopted 2014. Together these Policies promote high-quality sustainable design that relates positively and appropriately to its setting.

The Council have cited Policy DM D3 of the SPP, but this relates specifically to alterations and extensions to existing buildings and is therefore not directly relevant to this appeal, given the detached nature of the outbuilding. The Council have also cited Policy D4 of the London Plan, adopted 2021, in their reason for refusal. However, this Policy is strategic in nature with a focus on matters of process and design scrutiny rather than site specific issues. Any lack of direct conflict with these Policies does not weigh in favour of the development.

The properties on [address] and [address] have back-to-back rear curtilages and, with the exception of the appeal site, a rear access lane between boundaries. The existing structures at the rear of the properties do not cause harm to outlook. Although the proposed development would increase the height of the existing building, it would still be located at a significant distance from nearby habitable windows to avoid additional loss of outlook to any substantive degree. Therefore, outlook would not be unduly affected as a result of this development.

For the reasons given above the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. It would therefore comply with Policy DM D2 of the SPP which seeks to ensure that development provide an appropriate quality of living conditions to both proposed and adjoining buildings and gardens.

Although no harm has been found to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, this would not mitigate or outweigh the harm that has been found to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would not accord with the development plan when taken as a whole. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.