Appeal 6002373

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed the reference to the two-year retention from the description of development in the heading above, as this is not a form of development.

At the time of my site visit the development had been completed. Consent is sought for a period of two years. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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

The appeal site relates to a two-storey end of terrace property on the corner of [address] and [address]. The ground floor is used for commercial purposes, and the upper floor appears to be in residential use. This section of [address] is predominantly characterised by commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses on upper floors. The properties are generally set back from the highway and footpath, with a relatively uniform front building line. This creates a sense of openness along this part of the pavement.

The front extension projects forward of the terraces established front building line. This is out of keeping with surrounding development and detracts from the sense of openness along this section of [address]. Whilst the extension occupies a small footprint and sits beneath the existing fascias and signage, it’s projection, coupled with it’s steel structural frame and roller shutter, creates an overly prominent addition to the street scene which fails to relate well to surrounding development.

I acknowledge that numerous other commercial premises in the area benefit from awnings and there is some variation in the design of shop fronts. However, these are generally more subtle and maintain the sense of openness in the area. They are therefore not directly comparable to scheme before me.

A two-year temporary consent is sought. The site also benefits from planning permission to redevelop the site to create a hotel. The evidence before me confirms that the works have lawfully commenced and the permission has been implemented. It is however evident that such works have not been completed, and the commercial premises appears to still be in operation at the site. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out that a condition requiring demolition of a building, after a stated period, that is clearly intended to be permanent is unlikely to pass the test of reasonableness. [name] accept the appellant’s intention to develop the site into a hotel, I cannot be sure that this development will come forward. I am therefore not satisfied that a temporary permission is an appropriate solution.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the development results in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore contrary to Policies LP26 and LP28 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 and Policy D3 of the London Plan. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality shopfronts that respect the character and appearance of the area.

The Council outline how the extension has the potential to block pedestrian movement along the pavement. Such concerns however do not form a refusal reason. [name] have found harm in relation to the main issue, this matter would not be determinative, and I have not considered it further.

[name] acknowledge that the removal of the extension would incur cost to the appellant, this is a risk associated with undertaking development without planning permission. I therefore afford this point limited weight.

The removal may also cause some disruption; however, this would be short lived. The scheme may have some economic benefits. However, any such benefits would likely be limited given the scale of the development. Overall, these considerations do not outweigh the harm identified.

No other concerns are raised by the Council, and the scheme may ensure fire safety. These are however neutral considerations which do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.