Appeal 3374866

The appeal is dismissed.

The information submitted with the appeal indicates that the development had been completed prior to the point at which the application was made. Therefore, the plans submitted with the application are intended to be a representation of what is already there. During my site visit, I noted that the development had taken place, thus making the appeal development retrospective in nature. Nonetheless, the duty upon me is to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans and information that were before the council at the time of its decision, and I have proceeded on this basis.

I have removed reference in the description to “retrospective” as this does not relate to the act of development.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the: • character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; and • living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property comprises a detached dwelling with multi-tonal red brick exterior and a tiled roof with a flat roofed element extending across the width of the rear elevation. The pergola is located immediately adjacent to the rear elevation of the dwelling on an existing raised patio.

The development is described by the appellants as being open sided and lightweight. However, two sides are partially enclosed with dark coloured cladding and vertical timber slats which, together with the parapet feature, give the structure a solid and enclosed appearance.

The elevated position, design, and overall scale of the pergola result in a discordant development that fails to integrate with the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The raised elements within the flat roof, together with the partial parapet to one side, create a convoluted and visually awkward roof form that appears out of keeping with the surrounding context. Although there are outbuildings, including pergolas, within the wider area, the combined scale and design of the proposal render it prominent and detrimental to the character of the locality.

In light of the above, I conclude that the development results in harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This conflicts with saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon Local Plan (BLP) which states that, amongst other things, planning permission for new residential development, and for the alteration and extension of existing dwellings, will be refused if it causes material harm to the character of the surrounding area.

The scheme also conflicts with paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, together, seek to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and ensure high quality design.

The appeal development is located immediately adjacent to the boundary between the host dwelling and [address]. Due to its height and elevated position, the development is clearly visible above the existing boundary fence at No 26. Its height is exacerbated by the change in levels between the raised patio on the appeal site and the ground level at the neighbouring property. Although open sided on this side elevation, the partial parapet and raised elements within the roof, combined with the overall height, depth and proximity to the shared boundary, result in a dominant form of development when viewed from the rear garden of No 26.

The appellants refer to the pergola’s height being a minor increase over what would be allowed under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). Whilst not significantly above the height allowed by the GPDO, the development’s position on the raised platform and proximity to the boundary, with no intervening features to soften or mitigate the harm identified above, results in an over-dominant structure harming the outlook of No 26.

The appellants draw a comparison between the Council’s consideration of the planning application for the single storey rear element of the host dwelling, as approved, and its impact on No 26 at that time. However, the schemes are not directly comparable as, unlike the pergola, the approved dwelling was not located immediately adjacent to the shared boundary. Therefore, I give very limited weight to the consideration of the previous approval.

In light of the above, I conclude that the development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook. This conflicts with saved Policy BAS BE12 of the BLP which states that, amongst other things, planning permission for new residential development, and for the alteration and extension of existing dwellings, will be refused if it causes material harm due to over-dominance.

It also conflicts with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments create places which promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

For the above reasons, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations before me that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.