Appeal 6002839

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council and the appellant have agreed the description of development set out in the banner heading, which indicates that some works have been carried out retrospectively. At the time of my site visit, I observed an existing covered seating area with open sides in place. However, my assessment is based on the plans that were before the Council when the planning application was determined.

Those proposed plans differ from the development already carried out, including in the extent of enclosure, the materials proposed, and the height of the canopy. Plans showing the site prior to the retrospective works have also been submitted, and I have used these as the baseline against which to assess the appeal scheme.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No. [address], with particular regard to outlook, noise and overshadowing.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced property at the end of a parade of shops on [address]. The parade forms a largely continuous frontage, with a repetitive design and appearance, particularly at upper floor level. At ground floor, the character of the parade is defined by a mix of shopfronts, including a range of unit sizes, individual signage and advertisements, roller shutters and display windows, reflecting the varied uses within the units. The shops front directly onto a wide pavement, which accommodates pedestrian movement and a small amount of street furniture. Beyond the parade, the character of the road changes and becomes predominantly residential.

The absence of enclosing structures or significant canopies or awnings, with the exception of the appeal site, contributes to the open and wide character of the frontage. For example, a more modest and integrated traditional retractable awning can be seen a couple of units along the parade. This does not enclose the space, appears lightweight, and is clearly subordinate to the function of the host unit.

By contrast, both the existing and proposed seating areas occupy a considerable proportion of the pavement depth. They project a noticeable distance from the unit frontage and disrupt the otherwise open frontage along the parade of shops.

The proposed pergola would include glazing panels which, compared to the existing canopy structure, would have a relatively lightweight appearance. In addition, the simple design of the pergola would minimise the extent to which it would detract from the main frontage and from the continuous and consistent appearance of the parade of shops. Nonetheless, these factors would not avoid the visual harm identified.

I also recognise that the unit adjoins a residential property at [address]. That property, like others along this part of the road, has a low brick boundary wall which projects beyond the house frontage and encloses a front garden and driveway. As a result, the depth of pavement reduces at this point. This clearly reflects the change in use, and therefore character, as the road transitions from a commercial parade to a residential street. In this context, the reduced pavement width adjacent to the residential property is of less significance than it would be within the central part of the parade. However, the difference in character between the residential and commercial sections of the road does not outweigh the harm caused by the enclosed seating area.

The appellant refers to the non-permanent nature of the proposed structure. However, there is no evidence before me to indicate that there is any intention to remove it. On this basis, the structure must be treated as permanent.

I note the comparisons drawn by the appellant with the front extension at No. 24. However, that extension is of a notably smaller scale and is well integrated into the host dwelling. As such, it does not provide justification for the development proposed before me.

Taking all of the above into account, and notwithstanding the lightweight nature of the panels and the simple design, I find that the proposal would harm the open character and the consistent appearance of this short row of shops. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies D4 and D8 of the London Plan 2021 (LP), and with Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD3 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2024 (BDLP). These policies, taken together and insofar as relevant, require that proposals enhance the openness, attractiveness and coherence of public spaces and respond positively to the character of the surrounding area.

The proposal would result in the introduction of a noise-generating use and a permanent enclosed structure to the front of the appeal building, positioned immediately alongside No. [address] (No. 24), a two-storey residential dwelling.

No details have been provided of the current opening hours of the premises. [name] note that the appellant is willing to accept reduced hours of use for the covered seating area, in the absence of any clarity as to what those hours would be, this carries limited weight.

There is no detailed acoustic evidence before me. I acknowledge that, given the site’s location within a parade of shops and its proximity to the road, background noise levels are likely to be reasonably high. However, existing noise sources are generally transient in nature, such as pedestrians passing by, short conversations outside shops, or passing vehicles. By contrast, the proposed external seating area would introduce a more constant and static source of noise during its hours of use.

The lightweight and glazed nature of the side panels means that the enclosed structure would offer very limited acoustic attenuation. In addition, the appellant refers to the option of opening panels when desired, for example during warmer weather to improve ventilation. If this were to occur, the potential for noise to travel would be further increased.

There is no separation between No. 24 and the appeal site following the extension to that property, and the front-facing windows of No. [address] proximity to the proposed covered seating area. Given the size of the seating area, the lightweight nature of the structure, and the lack of certainty regarding operating hours, I consider there to be a significant potential for noise transmission between the two premises, to the detriment of the living conditions at No. 24.

The degree of projection of the covered seating area would also create a sense of enclosure along the front boundary of No. 24. Although the open nature of the front patio means occupiers are unlikely to sit out at the front, the existing open outlook from the front habitable room windows would be lost on one side. Due to the height and depth of the structure, together with the potential inclusion of privacy panels, the side outlook from the ground floor windows facing the appeal site would be entirely replaced by an enclosing form of development. This would represent a clear deterioration when compared with the existing situation.

The Council has also raised concerns regarding potential overshadowing. While the panels would be glazed and allow some light to pass through, a privacy panel is proposed adjacent to No. 24. For such a panel to function effectively, it would need to be solid and therefore opaque. Given the orientation of No. 24, existing levels of direct sunlight are already relatively limited. In light of the position of the proposed seating area, the effect on sunlight would be minimal, with any overshadowing restricted to the later afternoon or early evening. Even then, the relatively low height of the structure would limit the extent of any shadow cast. As such, I find that the potential for overshadowing is limited, although this remains a relevant factor when considering the overall effect on the living conditions at No. 24.

Taking all of the above into account, and in the absence of any acoustic evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am not satisfied that the proposal would avoid harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No. 24. This includes likely harm arising from noise, an undue sense of enclosure, and loss of outlook.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies D4, D13 and D14 of the LP; and Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMSI3 of the BDLP. These policies, taken together require that proposals safeguard the amenities of existing residents, including through minimising the transition of noise such to avoid significant adverse noise impacts.

There would be some economic benefits arising from the proposal, as it would increase the number of tables and, therefore, covers within an enclosed and weatherproof area capable of operating year-round. This would expand the scale of the restaurant compared to the pre-existing situation and could reasonably be assumed to benefit the business directly. It is unclear whether this would result in any changes to employment levels. In addition, the grant of permanent permission for an external seating area would provide greater operational certainty. However, there is no information before me regarding the viability of the existing business, how it may change, or the extent of any economic benefits that might arise. In the absence of such evidence, I can only afford modest weight to the economic benefits identified.

In conclusion, while the proposed covered seating area and associated expansion of the restaurant would deliver some benefits, these have not been quantified and attract only modest weight. By contrast, I have found that the proposal has the potential to cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly in terms of noise, which is a significant consideration. This runs contrary to the Framework’s requirement for development to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. As a result, the social objective of sustainable development would not be met.

Furthermore, I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, conflicting with the Framework’s aim of achieving well designed and attractive places, and therefore failing to meet the environmental objective of sustainable development. When taken together, I conclude that the proposal would not represent sustainable development, and that the identified harm and related policy conflict would outweigh the benefits of the scheme as proposed. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.