Appeal 3351746

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property is the subject of two open enforcement notices1 relating to an unauthorised outbuilding in the rear garden. The Council’s decision notice describes the proposed development as “proposed outbuilding in rear garden (retrospective)” and the Council has raised discrepancies between the submitted plans and the actual built form and appearance of the building.

During my site visit, I observed there to be a completed outbuilding at the appeal site and I refer to “the development” below.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal related to flood risk. The appellant considers that this is a matter that could appropriately be resolved by way of planning conditions and there is no substantive information before me to the contrary.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings of similar appearance. 1 Reference: EN0305/24; and EN/0304/24.

Houses in the area are set back from the road behind short parking areas and have longer gardens to the rear. During my site visit, I observed the surrounding area to have a pleasant sense of uniformity, derived from the similar design of dwellings, the common use of brick, render and tiles, the prevalence of hipped roofs of the same height and the regular setting-back of dwellings.

I also noted during my site visit that many dwellings have been altered and/or extended and that such changes generally appear in keeping with host dwellings and the surrounding area.

Also during my site visit, I observed that whilst there are numerous structures located within the rear gardens of [address], these generally appear as ancillary structures of modest scale, typical of a domestic garden setting. 10.By way of contrast, the development is so large and bulky as to visually dominate this area of garden land. Its width is such that it extends across the the appeal site and its footprint covers much of the rear garden, leaving only a relatively small area between it and the appeal dwelling’s rear extension. 11.The harm arising from the above is exacerbated by the development’s significant height, such that it draws attention to itself in a visually obtrusive manner. 12.Consequently, the development appears as unduly dominant built feature and draws attention to itself as an incongruous feature in its surroundings. 13.Taking the above into account, I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D3; to Core Strategy2 Policy CS1; to DMP3 Policy DM1; and to the Council’s Residential Design Guide4, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.