Appeal 3351871

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form confirms that the development has started, and I was able to see this during my site visit.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

The appeal site is a detached bungalow (the bungalow) at the southernmost end of [address], near its junction with [address]. Dwellings on the eastern side of [address], including the bungalow, adhere to a loose but recognisable building line in which each is set back from the highway by a similarly modest distance. This gives a consistency to the street despite a mix of architectural styles therein.

Tall fencing encloses [address] and [address], opposite the bungalow. I have no evidence that either enclosure is authorised and, in any event, they are exceptions to prevailing local characteristics; In the main, dwellings on [address] have low or no front boundary enclosures. This gives a general sense of openness to the street.

The appeal concerns a detached timber shed some 4.9m long, 3.1m wide, and 2.1m tall (the shed). It has a simple but neat appearance and is partially screened from view by tall boundary fencing. However, the fencing is unauthorised and has been erected instead of a 1m high brick wall, as approved in 2023 as part of the planning permission for the bungalow. I have no evidence that the existing fencing will remain in position in future and have determined the appeal on that basis.

Without the fence to screen it, the shed would dominate the appearance of the bungalow, eroding the otherwise open character of its frontage. It would appear incongruous in the setting, being the only outbuilding in front of the [address] building line, and erode the openness that is characteristic of the street. These harmful effects would be exacerbated by the prominence of the shed on the corner of the junction.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a host of properties on [address] where outbuildings exist between the main dwelling and the road, and cited two particular decisions which they consider to set a precedent. The first of these concerns an allowed appeal at No 96 Sutherland Avenue1, the second a planning permission issued by the Council at No 64A2.

There is no doubt that front outbuildings are common along [address]. However, generally speaking, houses there have significantly deeper forecourts than found on [address], meaning that development trends which may be acceptable on the former might be harmful on the latter. I saw in my site visit that forecourt buildings on [address] do not have the same dominant effect on their host dwellings as the shed has on the bungalow.

Forecourt size was important in the appeal at No 96, the Inspector finding that sufficient areas of greenery and openness would remain to the front area of that house to make it compatible and in harmony with the surrounding dwellings. That would not be the case at the appeal site, where the frontage is far shallower.

It is made explicit in the officer report that other, existing, detached garages at properties forming part of the same street scene as No 64A were material in the decision to allow the forecourt garage there. The appeal site bungalow is not part of that same street scene. It faces out onto, and is appreciably part of, [address], where the layout is different to [address], and does not include recurring forecourt outbuildings. Overall, I attach minimal weight to the cited examples and decisions in [address].

I recognise that the provision of a garden shed is a common requirement for homeowners and that, in granting planning permission for the bungalow, the Council could have anticipated such a requirement. I have no evidence, however, that the permission for the bungalow did not include other garden storage provision, or that a shed as large as that proposed in the appeal should have been foreseen. Furthermore, I have no evidence that an adequate shed could not be positioned either behind the bungalow or closer to the eastern site boundary, subject to a detailed assessment.

The development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) where they require scrutiny of the design of development proposals, and that they complement the layout of adjacent buildings and areas, and positively contribute to the existing street scene. In addition, for the reasons given above the development also conflicts with the advice contained in the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023), as reproduced by the appellant in their statement. 1 APP/G5180/D/21/3282210 2 DC/21/02006/FULL6

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.