Appeal 3360452

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description on the decision notice differs to the application form, however, I am satisfied that the latter, which I have used above, accurately describes the development to which the appeal relates. In addition, works had been carried out at the time of my site visit. The scheme is therefore considered on a retrospective basis.

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

The appeal site is a mid-terraced property in which the dwellings are separated from the highway by small front gardens and low boundary treatments. These are a mix of picket fencing, matching brick walling or hedging. The set back siting and period design of the properties along with the modest front boundary treatments lend a pleasant consistent feel to the street scene which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme introduces a tall steel bike shed which sits in place of the previous boundary treatment. It is significantly taller than the existing surrounding treatments and whilst the planting above attempts to soften its effect, it still results in an imposing, striking and harsh blocky feature which partially shields the characterful front elevation of the dwelling. It is highly visible from all directions and as a result is a prominent and incongruous addition which does not preserve the pleasant consistent feel of the street scene.

Photographs and addresses of other examples of similar development within other [name] have been provided. I am, however, unaware of the finer details thereof such as the circumstances which prevailed at the time, matters taken into account or their context. Resultantly, they do not affect my findings.

With these matters in mind, the proposal causes harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policies LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023 and the Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2016 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard

I have not seen any further information on an alternative proposal under the permitted development regime which might allow me to ascertain whether it’s scale and design would be sufficiently comparable to that of the appeal scheme. Such that I could ascribe more than limited weight to it as a fallback position. Further, any support for the scheme does not absolve me from making an assessment of it against the development plan.

The appellants are seeking to adopt personal practices that promote active travel and alternative means of transport to the car. However, I remain unconvinced that the bicycle shed implemented is the only way to achieve the outcome the appellant’s desire even if there are no community cycle stores that they can use.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.