Appeal 6003201

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Bexley. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and, • the living conditions of the occupiers of 211 and [address], with particular regard to natural light and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced residential property set within a primarily residential context of similarly designed terraced rows. Dwellings are typically two storeys in height with pitched roof projecting gables spanning between properties. Bay windows, porches and porch canopies are common features within the street scene.

The rear garden of the appeal property, as with neighbouring plots, is long and narrow, bounded at the rear by the railway line. Most of the rear gardens within the immediately surrounding area have outbuildings of varying scale and sizes, typically positioned towards the rear boundary.

The proposed outbuilding would replace an existing outbuilding within the appeal site, albeit its footprint would be further rearwards within the site. The proposed outbuilding has been designed with a crown roof. The front of the building would feature a catslide roof from the overall pitch as well as a projecting bay window, small roof dormer and projecting porch canopy.

Despite the low eaves of the catslide at the front of the building, the maximum eaves height of the building would be around 3m, only marginally short of the overall pitch height of the building. The resultant building form would therefore feature tall uninterrupted expanses of blockwork to the side elevations which would create an overly bulky and dominating structure.

When compared to the neighbouring outbuildings in the adjoining gardens, the immediate context to which the proposal would be interpreted, the proposal would be a stark and incongruous form of development. Both the overall height and the maximum eaves height would be significantly taller than the neighbouring residential outbuildings.

Whilst porches and bay windows feature frequently in the overall street scene, they are not typical features on ancillary outbuildings, particularly not in the combined, cluttered nature of the proposal. The height of these elements may fall below the restrictions of permitted development, but they form part of the overall proposal which I must assess as a whole.

The scale, height and overall massing of the outbuilding, coupled with the overly domesticated features on the front elevation would be visually obtrusive and would compete with the primacy of the host dwelling and therefore fail to display subservience.

Various examples of outbuildings in the surrounding area, in the form of plans, officer reports and an appeal decision1 have been provided in the evidence. However, none of these are directly comparable to the design of the appeal proposal in relation to its combination of eaves height, overall pitch height and design detailing.

My attention has also been drawn to the presence of outbuildings associated with the adjacent railway line, which I observed in some cases are taller than the proposed outbuilding. However, these have a functional and simplistic design which, despite their height, reduces their overall dominance. The examples of existing outbuildings provided therefore do not justify the development before me.

Based on the above, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) (BLP) which sets out several considerations for development proposals including ensuring that the layout, height, scale and massing and façade treatment of development are complimentary to the surrounding area. It would also be contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) which relates in part to maintaining design quality.

Policy DP11 of the BLP also refers to ensuring that existing properties’ amenity is appropriately protected. The Council has not raised any specific concerns relating to privacy or overlooking arising from the appeal proposal and based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to take a different view on these matters. 1 APP/D5120/W/15/3130646 decision dated 30 December 2015

The proposed outbuilding would be positioned towards the end of the rear garden; some distance from the rear elevations of the nearest neighbouring dwellings. Although the outbuilding would be close to the neighbouring boundaries, it would sit broadly between (albeit further rearwards) the existing outbuildings within the neighbouring plots. This positioning would severely limit the instances where the occupiers of 211 and [address] would experience the main bulk and form of the outbuilding.

Whilst the proposed outbuilding would extend further rearwards within the plot than the respective neighbouring outbuildings, the effect of this would be to the very rear limits of the neighbouring gardens. Given the length of the neighbouring gardens, I find this to be the least sensitive area of amenity space, which noting its positioning adjacent to the railway line is unlikely to be in frequent use.

Although the proposal would be visible to neighbouring occupiers, I do not find that it would amount to a materially harmful overbearing or overshadowing impact. The proposal would therefore have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 211 and [address], with particular regard to natural light and outlook. I have therefore identified no specific conflict with Policy DP11 of the BLP in relation to this main issue.

I note that the proposal would provide benefits to the appellant including through an increased length of landscaped garden area to the rear of the dwelling, and the creation of additional living space. However, these are private benefits and do not overcome the harm which I have identified to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider surrounding area.

[name] have found that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the appeal is dismissed.