Appeal 6001037

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised description was agreed in writing by the local planning authority (LPA) and the appellant prior to the determination of the planning application, and the application was determined on that basis.

I have omitted the terms ‘part retrospective’ and ‘proposed’ from the description as these do not constitute acts of development. I am satisfied that the revised description, as amended, is an accurate description of the development sought, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the safe and efficient operation of the footway on [address].

The appeal site at [site address] is a retail unit shopfront located at the end of a small shopping parade within [site address] District Town Centre. A nearby bus stop provides access to the centre via several bus routes. A loading bay is located at the front of the site, narrowing the footway in this location.

Excluding the appeal site, there is a high degree of uniformity throughout the parade, as the units all maintain a consistent building line. This consistency contributes positively towards the character and appearance of the area.

As noted during my site visit and based on the plans provided, a shutter box structure and solid shutters are already constructed at nos 184-186, and changes have been made to the entrance door and fenestration. The proposal seeks permission to retain the shutter box structure and the changes to the entrance door and fenestration; and proposes the installation of a light grill shutter door to replace the solid shutters which are currently in place.

Policies D4 and D8 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals and the public realm to be well designed. Policy SP2 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024) (the Local Plan) promotes high-quality design that provides safe, convenient, accessible and healthy inclusive developments and interesting public spaces for all. Local Plan Policies DMD 1 and DMD 3 include specific design requirements relating to the public realm and development in town centres, which includes respecting the building lines of the existing urban environment.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) section 12 seeks to achieve well-designed places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The shutter box structure protrudes approximately 1 metre beyond the building line into the footway at the front of the appeal site. This creates a prominent and imposing physical feature which significantly undermines the consistent building line along the parade. No evidence has been put forward by the appellant to justify why such an extensive structure is necessary to facilitate the installation of security shutters. There is evidence of more discreet shutters on the same parade, which do not cause an incursion into the footway. This is harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

With regard to the proposed style of shutters, these would be visually permeable which would limit harm from a design perspective. The alterations to the entrance door and fenestration constitute a minor reconfiguration and do not cause harm in terms of design or accessibility. These elements of the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Notwithstanding the absence of harm in relation to the proposed style of shutters and the alterations to the entrance door and fenestration, I conclude that the shutter box structure causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. This therefore conflicts with London Plan Policies D4 and D8, Local Plan Policies SP2, DMD 1 and DMD 3, and section 12 of the Framework.

Policies D8 and T4 of the London Plan and Policies SP2, DMD 1 and DMD 3 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that the public realm promotes active travel (including walking) and that any impacts on the public realm as a result of development proposals are addressed and mitigated. Section 9 of the Framework promotes sustainable transport, giving priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements and requiring applications for development to create places that are safe, secure and attractive, minimising scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and avoiding unnecessary street clutter.

The shutter box structure constitutes a significant permanent incursion into the footway. The impact on the footway is exacerbated by the location of the loading bay and a signpost at the front of the site, which create additional obstructions for pedestrians. Collectively, these features narrow the footway at the front of the appeal site, particularly during periods of loading activity, which reduces the space available for pedestrians.

In conclusion, the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the safe and efficient operation of the footway on [address]. This is contrary to London Plan Policies D8 and T4, Local Plan Policies SP2, DMD 1 and DMD 3, and section 9 of the Framework.

Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. The proposal will help to support a local business by providing space to facilitate the display of goods, albeit this benefit will likely be relatively limited in economic terms. I have therefore given this limited weight in my determination.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the safe and efficient operation of the footway on [address]. It would be inconsistent with the Development Plan considered as a whole. While there would be a limited economic benefit, this is not sufficient to outweigh the concerns identified.

For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.