Appeal 3325261

The appeal is dismissed.

The development, the subject of the appeal, has already been constructed. Accordingly, the application is retrospective and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council amended the description of the development and I have adopted this description in the banner heading above as it is more precise.

The Council asked that site visits be made to the neighbouring properties, but I was unable to gain access to No [address]. I was able to view the site from the other neighbouring property, No [address], and there was also the opportunity to view the site from the rear access road.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the (i) the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and (ii) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, No [site address] (No 64), is an end of terrace property arranged in a row of six properties located in a residential area and separated from its non attached neighbour by a small gap. Located to the rear of the properties on [address] is an access road to the garages/outbuildings sited at the rear of the properties on [address] and those on the adjacent street, [address].

The gardens of the properties in this part of [address] are modest in size and the garages/outbuildings located at their rear, form a regular pattern of flat low level single storey outbuildings. Due to them extending across the full width of the rear garden they have an enclosing effect on the outlook obtained from the gardens or rear windows of the dwellings and the access road itself. The outbuilding, as built, with imposing gable ends and a high pitched roof is a notable structure due to its height and mass. From the rear gardens of the properties on [address], it is significantly higher than the existing boundary walls and the upper part of the outbuilding and roof slope are overbearing features. Having viewed the outbuilding from the rear of No [address], it has an unduly imposing and enclosing presence given its close position and considerable mass and height. As such it significantly diminishes the outlook from the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties which provides the main outdoor amenity space for the occupiers of these properties.

Accordingly, the development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. It would therefore conflict with Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy ([name]) and Policies DMD8, DMD 12 and DMD 37 of The Enfield Development Management Documents ([name]). Together these policies require new development to be appropriate in its context, and for proposals for outbuildings to be of a size, scale and siting so as to not have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining properties.

There is a wide variety to the style, size and age of the garages/outbuildings found on the access road to the rear of [address]. Whilst there are examples of garages/outbuildings with a pitched roof, the majority have flat roofs which leads to a regular pattern of development of low level buildings. Many of the garages/outbuildings are old and in a poor condition. The outbuilding is of a good quality build and its modern appearance is a visual improvement from the dilapidated structure which it replaced. However, due to its height, mass and the colour of the render of the gable walls, it is prominent and stands out in contrast to the regular pattern of development visible from the rear gardens. As such, it causes an unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been specifically drawn to a large garage sited opposite to the outbuilding which is higher than others on this part of the access road. Whilst it is larger than those immediately around it, it has a shallow sloping roof which mitigates against any undue dominance. I am not aware of the detailed circumstances in which this garage was built and so am unable to draw any direct parallels with the development before me. In any event each case must be treated on its own merits and the existence therefore of other development does not justify development which would otherwise be acceptable.

I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to refurbish the dwelling and the ancillary outbuilding to a modern standard. Further, whilst the appellant refers to the development being substainable, the National Planning Policy Framework also requires development to be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

Therefore, having regard to the above, the development fails to comply with Policy CP30 of the [name] and Policies DMD8, DMD 12 and DMD 37 of the [name]. Together these policies require new development to be appropriate in its context, and for proposals for outbuildings to be of a size, scale and siting so as to not have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining properties.

I acknowledge that the appellant has indicated that he did not appreciate the need for planning permission for an outbuilding of the height that was finally constructed and that he received differing advice as to the acceptability of the height of the outbuilding. However, these are not matters before me nor do they alter my findings.

For the reasons given, I hereby dismiss the appeal.