Appeal 3306581

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my visit a single-storey outbuilding with a hipped roof similar to that shown on the application drawing was at an advanced stage of construction. This appeal therefore relates to an application for retrospective planning permission.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and shading.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house. It has been extended to the rear and includes a detached single garage to the side behind which there are a pair of garden outbuildings. The garden is bounded by the rear gardens serving the properties in [address] and [address] to one side and the rear respectively, and by [address] to the other side. This is a typical garden environment containing lawns, vegetation and small outbuildings.

The appeal scheme comprises a single-storey “garden leisure room” with a hipped roof and a large aperture facing the garden. It occupies almost the full-width of the rear half of the garden, is similar in size to a typical 3-bedroom bungalow and has a footprint that is larger than that of the application property. Due to its size and siting it is entirely incongruous and an overly prominent addition to the garden environment within which it is located and consequently has a harmful urbanising effect.

For these reasons the appeal scheme has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the application site and its surroundings. It therefore fails to accord with Policies H9 and ENV39 of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan (2004), and Policy CS05 of the [name] (2012) which seek to ensure new developments are of a high standard of design and compatible with the character of existing and adjacent buildings, having regard to matters such as scale, massing, height and intensity of development. The proposal is also contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and the Council’s Design and Development Control Guideline No 2, the latter of which advises that extensions should protect the character of the property and the area.

The appeal scheme is large for a garden environment and is sited close to the site boundaries shared with the neighbouring dwellings. However, the building has a shallow pitched roof and the eaves are similar in height to surrounding boundary enclosures. As such, the effect of the height and massing of the scheme on outlook from, and shading within, neighbouring properties is small. For these reasons I am satisfied that the appeal scheme does not result in an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. In this respect the appeal scheme accords with the aforementioned policies in so far as they relate to this matter.

I note the appellant’s view that the appeal scheme is permitted development. This however is not a matter before me for consideration in the context of an appeal following the refusal of planning permission. Without a clearly established fall-back scenario, I attribute limited weight to what the appellant may be able to build within the garden under permitted development rights.

For the reasons set out under the first main issue, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.