Appeal 6002734

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed garden annexe to accommodate a gymnasium, located within the rear garden at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03217/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with [name] 25-1241-100, 25-1241-101, 25-1241-300 ([name]), 25-1241- 301 ([name]), 25-1241-310 ([name]) and 25-1241-320 ([name]).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on [name] 25-1241-310 ([name]).

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, including the effect on existing trees; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached property fronting [address]. Its rear garden is served by a private access road from [address]. The buildings in the surrounding area vary in style, design and materials. Outbuildings and structures of various sizes and forms are present within these rear gardens, except at the appeal site.

The proposed development would be sited at the end of the rear garden, retaining a reasonable area of unaltered garden space. Its rendered façade would be similar to that of the host building.

Where viewed from the host building and adjoining properties, the proposal would be read against the tall flank wall of No 11 with trees along shared boundaries providing additional screening. The upper part of the proposed development would be visible from [address], through the private access road, where it would project above the boundary wall. In these views, an outbuilding on the boundary of [address] is already prominent at the corner, and the roofs of other garden structures are visible in the foreground.

I acknowledge there would be no 1 metre clearance around the perimeter of the structure, as required by Policy Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035 (2021) (the LP), and that the overall height would be approximately 3.9m. However, the simple façade treatment and zinc-clad hipped roof would minimise any perceived massing in views from the appeal site and neighbouring gardens. From that perspective, the proposed development would appear subservient to the host building. The proposal would also accord with the [name] (2023), which requires garden structures to be carefully designed so as not to harm visual amenity or lead to an unacceptable loss of garden space. Accordingly, the proposed development would have a modest presence and would not appear dominant or incongruous within the rear garden setting or surrounding area.

With regard to trees, I observed a tree on the appeal site near the boundary with [address] at my site visit. However, it is modest in size and sufficiently distant from the proposed development. Within this rear garden setting outside of the CA away from public vantage points, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that a development of this scale would potentially harm existing trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological conservation value, including those in neighbouring gardens.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area, including existing trees. It would therefore comply with Policies Q2, Q5, Q10, Q11 and Q14 of the LP, which in summary promote high-quality development and the protection of existing trees.

Two ground‐floor side windows at No 11 face the rear boundary of the appeal site across the private access road. Based on my site observations, one is a high‐level window and both are fitted with obscure glazing.

The hipped roof of the proposed development would project above the existing boundary wall and would be visible from those windows. Nevertheless, due to their position and obscure glazing, those windows do not currently benefit from an unrestricted outlook. Moreover, the proposed hipped‐roof design of the structure and the separation distance of approximately 4m between it and the window at No 11 would ensure that the proposal would not materially affect outlook or result in an undue sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 11.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11 with regard to outlook. Consequently, it would comply with LP Policy Q2, which amongst other matters seeks to ensure adequate outlooks are provided.

Given that the rear boundary fronts an access road, the absence of a 1m clearance from the boundaries would not give rise to maintenance access issues.

I note the concerns raised by interested parties including in respect of impacts to heritage setting, light pollution, privacy, noise and disturbance, risk of commercial or other uses, rainwater drainage, biodiversity, party wall matters and structural safety. I have assessed matters of character and appearance, including heritage, above. There is no dispute between the Council and appellant in respect of the other matters. Based on the scale, domestic nature and intended use of the proposed development, there is no substantive evidence before me to lead me to an alternative conclusion. Issues relating to structural damage and party wall agreements are private matters.

Based on the evidence before me, part of the appeal site is located within the [address] (South) Conservation Area (CA). In line with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. Bearing in mind the position, nature and extent of the proposals, I consider that they would have neutral effect on, and would therefore preserve, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. As such, the proposal would not harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. I note that the Council had no concerns in these aspects either. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

Conditions have been imposed in relation to the standard time limit and requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. These are necessary in the interests of certainty. A further condition requiring that the materials used on the construction of the proposed annex match those shown on the approved plans is also necessary to ensure the development integrates satisfactorily with the host building and its surroundings.

The Council has stated in its submitted evidence that had the application been recommended for approval, a condition would have been imposed to ensure that the proposed development remains in use solely as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling. However, this condition would not be necessary as I am satisfied that the description of the development is consistent with the proposal and there is no proposal for a separate dwelling or any other use before me.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and relevant statute.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.