Appeal 6003335

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] (the Appellant) against the London Borough of Waltham Forest Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The “Description of [address]” that is given in the planning application form is extensive and it includes explanatory material. Notwithstanding this description, therefore, the nature of the proposal (in formal planning terms) can more clearly and succinctly be expressed as set out in the Council’s decision notice and in the appeal form, as the “construction of a single storey garden annexe to provide residential accommodation to main dwellinghouse”.

The application form seems to confuse the name of the agent with that of the applicant. I am satisfied, however, that the applicant and appellant is correctly identified in the above banner heading.

The main issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the proposed development would create satisfactory living conditions for new occupants.

The second reason for refusal given by the local planning authority related to a tree that was previously located close to the site and this also needs to be addressed in this decision. Appeal Decision: 6003335

The appeal site is located in the south-western part of Chingford in an extensive suburban area. [address] is a long residential road, characterised by two-storey houses in short terraces, behind modest front gardens which, in many cases, have been laid out as off-street parking spaces. The footpaths are set with trees, however, which have the effect of softening the townscape.

The houses along [address] are generally traditional in design, with pitched roofs and rendered external walls. Over the years, however, there have been many alterations and extensions and the streetscene is now quite varied. Number 102 stands at the end of a short terrace and is rendered (and painted white on the front elevation), with a gabled roof. It also has a large projecting gable feature on the front elevation.

A narrow driveway runs between numbers 102 and 104, providing access to garages at the rear of properties in [address]. The access is securely gated, however, and is covered by grass; it does not appear to be well used. At some time, a mature tree was standing in the access way, close to the rear of the plot at 102 where one of the garages is located, although it has been removed (apparently prior to the submission of the planning application).

The garage building at the rear of number 102 is served by the accessway, although it stands within the curtilage of the appeal site. The garage is constructed of concrete panels and is in poor condition, however. The remainder of the back garden is enclosed by a wall and fence and is mainly covered with rough grass.

It is now proposed to demolish the garage and to construct in its place a “single-storey ancillary garden studio flat”. An alteration to the main house would also be undertaken, to provide a ramp and path for disabled access.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. Notably, in the context of this appeal, Policy 53 of the ‘Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1’ (which was adopted in 2024) is concerned with “[name]” generally, while Policy 56 sets out “[name]” more specifically (including criteria for external amenity spaces).

The proposed new building would create a detached unit, with a living area, kitchenette and wet room (bathroom). Thus, it would have all the facilities necessary for independent living. A paved terrace would be created within the garden and a path would be laid between the new building and the front of the main house. This would require the removal of a small side extension to the main house (containing a toilet), which would otherwise block the route of the new path. The new building and the existing house would share the back garden of the property. Appeal Decision: 6003335

The new building would be constructed in brickwork under a pitched roof, using conventional materials, but it would be larger than the existing garage, in a backland location. The building itself would be sufficient for independent living but it would share the existing garden area and would have a poor relationship with the existing house, as occupants of each would overlook each other. The new building would be separately accessible both by way of the proposed new path and ramp and from the shared access way that serves the existing garage.

In short, the new building would provide unsatisfactory living standards for residents and would amount to overdevelopment in a backland location. It would conflict with local and national planning policies, therefore, and ought not to be allowed.

In the submissions, it is explained that the proposed accommodation is needed for a disabled family member and it is argued that an extension to the main house would not be practicable as an alternative. I do not find this argument to be persuasive, however, while, in any case, the specific need would be likely to change in time, whereas the new building would be permanent. I do not, therefore, find that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the planning objections that I have identified, to the creation of an effectively self-contained residential unit.

In this appeal, it is also necessary to consider the Council’s second reason for refusal, which raises concerns about “a significant nearby tree to the site”. The Officer’s Report on the planning application refers to “a large tree in situ” adjacent to the rear end of the site, although the appeal statement records that “no tree was present” on 3 July 2025. At the time of the site visit there was no such tree in existence and the Council have acknowledged that it should not have formed a reason for refusal on the decision notice.

In the light of the evidence, I conclude that there could be no justification for refusing the application based its effect on the tree that stood adjacent to the site in the past.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the proposal would lead to the creation of an unsatisfactory separate living unit, in practice, contrary to policies that are intended to ensure good design and adequate living standards. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me ought not to be allowed.

In reaching my conclusions, I have considered whether it would be possible to allow the appeal but to impose a condition or conditions to ensure that the new building could not be used as a separate residential unit. I have concluded, however, that it would not be possible to formulate conditions that would be both reasonable and enforceable for the long term. In consequence, I have concluded that the appeal must be dismissed and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.