Appeal 6001001

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 address shown above is from the application form. The site occupies more than one premises, referred to as Numbers 39 and 41, with different planning permissions for both. The site plan shows the development area over both addresses. This situation doesn’t affect the substance of the scheme.

It appears that the appellant has not addressed the Council’s concerns in regard to the accuracy of the plans vs what is on site. It is clear that the appellants intention is for the structure to remain. Moreover, I am satisfied that even with the discrepancy between the finer details, the scale and siting would remain the same and there is sufficient information to consider the appeal. The main issue in which is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a restaurant use on the ground floor with the surrounding high street appearing to be a mix of commercial, further restaurants/ pubs and retail units all on the ground floor. The upper floors appear to be residential. This leads to a consistent pattern of uses within the high street. Moreover, the street has a wide pedestrian pathway in which there are some instances of temporary outdoor seating and retractable awnings sitting subserviently against the existing use contributing to an open aspect. These give a busy and vibrant feel to the street which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The structure including the roof covering gives the appearance of a single storey front extension due to its overall substance and scale, which results in a lack of permeability and detracts from the open quality of the street scene. Notwithstanding the fact that the structure sits on a similar footprint to the previously approved scheme. It appears this scheme has evolved to be a more permanent outside solution which is bulky and obtrusive. Whilst the windows are opening, they have the same function as a building in such that due to the typical weather experienced are likely to remain closed the majority of the time to allow use all year round. The roof covering can retract; however, its solidity and metal framing gives the appearance of a solid roof rather than an awning. These features in combination reduce the level of intervisibility of the frontage of the restaurant and appear as a blocky façade detracting from the wider more free flowing character.

The planning permissions granted in 2015 and 2019 for which limited information has been provided are different to the appeal scheme. The former was for an awning similar to ones in the local vicinity, and the latter for the neighbouring building to follow suit along with the temporary outside seating with no evidence of structures such as the one in place today.

Some ground floor uses along the street have outside seating and awnings. However, these examples are clearly different in that they can be removed at the end of the day, and the shop frontage would return to its original state which still allows a level of openness to the wider street scene, and the views experienced of the busy vibrant street remain the same. Whereby the appeal proposal would remain mostly in place and highly obvious during the periods of closure and detracting from the overall open streetscene.

The Crumpled Horn is adjacent the appeal site; however, it is apparent that the structures are largely different. The Crumpled Horn is a timber framed structure with no windows which still allows visibility to the frontage and does not harm the openness of the street scene. Moreover, the awnings are the more typical roller style and do not attempt to shroud the original building. Therefore, and notwithstanding it’s planning status or lack thereof, it is a substantially different situation to the appeal scheme. The proposal thus causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

As such, there is conflict with Policies 13 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard. The lack of comment from neighbouring properties does not weigh in favour of the planning appeal and would be neutral in any balance.

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.