Appeal 6002771

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. The description on the decision notice and the appeal form is different to that stated on the application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that the revised description set out on the decision has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the description given on the original application form. I do not consider that this has prejudiced any of the parties and I have proceeded with the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is within a row of buildings primarily comprising commercial premises at ground floor level. The buildings are set back from the back edge of the wide pavement, with largely open forecourts some of which are enclosed with low walls and railings. To either side of the row of buildings, the built form is closer to the edge of the pavement. This includes the building at No [address], which projects to the edge of the footway.

The front elevations within the row of buildings have been altered, through the addition of shopfronts, fascia signs and large awnings projecting towards the pedestrian footway. The area to the front of No [address] (No 182) is enclosed with a retractable fabric awning, including to the front and side. The varied ground floor elevations partly disrupt the architectural rhythm of the row of buildings, albeit the forecourts are largely characterised by their openness.

The site is used as a café with an open seating area to the front of the site bounded by a low enclosure. The seating area provides an active frontage that adds to the partly commercial character of the area. The proposal is for a glazed enclosure to the front and side of the front seating area beneath a retractable awning. Although stated to be fully retractable, there are no specific details of how the structure, including the side panels, would appear when not in operation. The retractable glazed enclosure would allow for use of the seating area during the winter months and inclement weather conditions.

When in operation, which could be for a prolonged period during the winter months, the glazed panels would surround the seating area forming an enclosure around the open forecourt. Though the roof and glazed panels would be see-through, they would be set within frames that would reduce the transparency of the development. The structure would form a visually dominant and incongruous addition that would partly obscure the ground floor of the building. Moreover, the proposal would reduce the spaciousness of the area to the front of the row of buildings. Although the development would not encroach beyond the front boundary, it would occupy a prominent position given the open forecourts on either side.

The forecourt at No 182 is enclosed by a retractable awning with fabric sides. While the proposal would similarly enclose the forecourt, the site occupies a more prominent position within the area than No 182, which adjoins the projecting single-storey building at No 184. Nevertheless, the enclosure of part of the space to the front of the row of the buildings would limit the extent of the harm caused by the proposed development.

The proposal would be integral and functionally related to the existing café use of the site and would not extend the boundary of the site and obstruct the pavement. While the proposal would be retractable, the details do not show how the glass surrounds would appear when not in operation and whether the glazing would be set within a permanent frame. Consequently, the proposal would not fully accord with the requirements of Policy DM14 [name] of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 [name] 2023 (LP).

My attention has been drawn to premises in other commercial areas and centres in the District that have retractable awnings and glazed enclosures. While there are some similarities with the scheme before me, given that there is limited substantive evidence before me including the addresses and any planning permissions, I cannot be certain that the circumstances are similar to the appeal proposal before me. In any event, each proposal should be considered on its individual merits and with appropriate regard to the development plan and any material considerations.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore conflicts with Policies DM9LP, which requires that all development proposals to relate positively to their context, drawing on the local character and make a positive contribution to a place

The proposal would provide a boost to the existing business at the site through the accommodation of more customers within the seating area. The potential to increase income could lead to enhanced job opportunities at the business. Policy SP1 of the LP states that the Council will help growing businesses, whilst the National Planning Policy Framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Nevertheless, the economic benefits of the proposal are limited by the scale of the proposal, which would not outweigh the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.