Appeal 6001098

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.

During my site visit, I made note of a structure that sat along the entire length of the boundary dividing the site from [address] which was in place. The council provided confirmation that this structure is related to an open enforcement case, however they noted that no enforcement notice had been issued at the time of writing. Therefore, I have not considered this structure to form part of the existing site conditions.

The main issues of the appeal are the proposal’s effect on the living conditions of [address] (No 2) and [address] (No 312), with regard to outlook and light.

[site address] is a commercial property located on the corner of the junction where [address] meets [address]. There is a courtyard area to the rear of the property which is currently visually separated from the public realm by hoarding. There is also a structure of a considerable height that sits divides No 312’s rear garden from the courtyard area of the appeal site. A bin store sits to the front of No 2’s principal elevation, partially obscuring views from one of the ground floor windows. The host property features a rear outrigger with a shallow projection which sits closely to the boundary shared with No 314.

The proposed development would be positioned directly on the shared boundary with No 312. When taken together with the host property’s existing outrigger, which already sits close to this boundary, the resulting arrangement would create an almost continuous line of built form rising above No 314’s boundary fence. This would introduce an overbearing sense of enclosure and materially diminish the quality of outlook for occupants of No 312 when using their garden.

The appellant has submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment which indicates that the proposal would meet the relevant BRE guidelines. Whilst there would be some reductions in sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties, my observations on site, together with the evidence before me, suggest that these would remain within acceptable limits. I have not been provided with any compelling evidence to indicate otherwise. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for reasons relating to outlook, this matter is not determinative and does not alter my overall conclusion.

Although the existing bin storage to the front of No [address] to a window of the property so it restricts outlook from that window, it could be removed by future occupants of the building, including if the Council pursues enforcement action. By contrast, the proposal would introduce a substantially larger and permanent structure next to windows in No 2. Its scale and proximity would present a dominant and enclosing form that would materially harm the outlook experienced by the current and future occupants of No 2.

I note that the height of the scheme has been reduced from a similar proposal that was refused previously by the council. However, this does not sufficiently mitigate the cumulative impact that would result from its overall bulk and positioning forward of the established building line along [address].

The structures at [address] and 1 and [address] comprise boundary walls and are therefore not directly comparable to the building proposed in this appeal. The other examples cited at [address], 1 Maryville, and [address] appear to be temporary structures and similarly do not provide a meaningful comparison with the appeal proposal. In addition, with the exception of [address], no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these structures benefit from planning permission. As such, I do not consider any of these examples to establish a precedent that would justify the proposed development

I conclude that, while the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the sunlight and daylight received by [address] and [address], it would nevertheless result in harm of significant detriment to the living conditions of the occupants of those properties due to its impact on outlook. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) which, amongst other matters, requires that development does not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook.

I acknowledge that the proposal could offer some benefits in terms of social interaction, local expenditure, investment and employment opportunities. These attract significant weight in favour of the scheme, in line with paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The scheme’s proximity to public transport links attracts moderate weight as a benefit due to its sustainable location. The efficient use of land and maximisation of available space also attract moderate positive weight. While the proposed energy-efficient measures weigh in favour of the development, their benefits are limited by the small scale of the scheme and therefore carry only limited weight.

The proposal would conflict LP policy LP26 regarding the protection of resident’s living conditions, drawing it into conflict with the development plan as a whole. [name] have given significant weight to the stated benefits, the conflict with the development plan would be of greater significance. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the stated benefits would not amount to material considerations of such significance to lead me to recommend that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.