Appeal 6003347

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outbuilding and rear boundary wall, with proposed lower height of outbuilding at [site address] , Redbridge, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2504/25, and the plans submitted with it, 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 the following approved plans: • Location Plan, [name]. NGL105506 • Block Plan, as provided in ‘Appeal Against Refusal of Planning Permission LPA Reference: 2504/2’ by Architectural co-operative • [name], [name]. HK/07 • Proposed Roof Plan, [name]. HK/05 • [name], [name]. HK/06 • Existing Floor Plan, [name]. HK/04

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match those used on the existing main property.

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes incidental to the dwelling known as [site address] , Redbridge, [postcode] .

I have taken the description used in the heading above from the submitted application form. I have however removed reference to the application being retrospective as this is not a form of development.

On my site visit it was evident that a development has taken plan. However, the Council indicates that what has been built may not match the submitted plans, as the provided photos show the height of the outbuilding to be 2.5 metres, whereas the proposed plans show the height to be 2.7 metres. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey end of terrace property on [address]. The property benefits from a parking area to the front of the site and a garden to the rear. Surrounding development includes terraced and semi-detached dwellings of a similar size and style. Various outbuildings and garages are evident within the surrounding area. Boundary walls and fences are also common within the area.

The Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which does not constitute planning policy, but is instead guidance to assist in the application of the planning policy, sets out that outbuildings should be appropriately located towards the end of a garden with an eaves height of no more than 3 metres for flat roofs and 2.5 metres for pitched roofs. Doors and windows in the side walls should also be avoided.

The outbuilding would be sited along the length of the side boundary closest to [address]. Whilst various other outbuildings front onto [address], these are generally positioned to the rear of the site so as only the narrower end faces onto the road. This promotes a sense of openness along [address], between the junctions with [address] and [address]. Similarly, most other outbuildings in the surrounding area are positioned to the rear of the site. In this regard, the positioning of the outbuilding would be out of keeping with the surrounding pattern of development and erode the sense of openness along this part of the road.

Three windows and double doors would face onto [address]. This would be somewhat at odds with the other outbuildings fronting onto the road, which typically have roller garage doors facing the road. This, coupled with the positioning of the outbuilding along the side boundary, would result in the creation of an outbuilding that would be incongruous, visually intrusive and out of keeping with surrounding development.

The submitted plans indicate that the outbuilding would have a mono pitched roof with a maximum height of 2.7 metres. The Council contend that this would be contrary to the guidance in the SPD. However, the proposed ridge height would be broadly in line with that of other outbuildings, including those facing onto [address]. Additionally, I am mindful that whilst the roof would be mono pitched, the slope would be very gentle and somewhat comparable in appearance to a flat roof. Given this, I do not consider that the proposed outbuilding would be excessive in height, or out of keeping with surrounding development in this regard. Notwithstanding this, this does not overcome the harm identified above.

The plans indicate that the rear boundary wall would measure 2.3 metres in height. The SPD outlines how, apart from in specific circumstances, rear boundary walls in rear garden areas can be erected up to 2 metres in height without planning permission. It goes on to state that the design of boundary treatments should reflect the character of the area, and where there is a predominant character and/or height, proposals should reflect this.

The boundary wall would be slightly higher than most other rear boundary fences in the area. Nonetheless, the difference would be minimal and overall, the height would be broadly reflective of surrounding boundary treatment. In addition, given the walls positioning to the rear of the site, in between a number of outbuildings, it would be minimally visible from the street scene. As such, for the reasons set out, the wall would be in keeping with surrounding development and have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

To conclude on the main issue, whilst the rear boundary wall would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, the outbuilding would be out of keeping with surrounding development and harmful to the character and appearance of the area in this regard. It would contrary to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015- 2030 (RLP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that positively complements the character of an area.

Although not referenced in the refusal reason, the Council also contend in its case officer report that the scheme would be contrary to Policy LP7 of the RLP. This policy relates to resisting the use of outbuildings within a dwelling curtilage or garden for separate sleeping and living accommodation and the subdivision of gardens to create new residential accommodation. Whilst the plans do not show any sleeping or living accommodation, one of the rooms is not labelled and I therefore cannot be sure of its proposed use. As such, if I were to allow the appeal, I could use a condition to ensure that the outbuilding is used only for purposes incidental to the main dwelling.

I am mindful that the property benefits from a certificate of lawfulness 1 for a detached rear outbuilding. The approved outbuilding would be sited in broadly the same location as the appeal proposal, have two windows and doors which would open onto [address], be of a similar width and depth and approximately 20cm smaller in height than the appeal proposal. This represents a fallback position which in my view, has a greater than a theoretical possibility of being carried out if this appeal is not allowed.

Although there would be one additional window facing onto [address], this would be very small in size, and its impact would be negligible. Also, the outbuilding would be 20cm taller than the fallback position, however as set out, I do not consider that the height of the outbuilding would be excessive or out of 1 1114/22 keeping with surrounding development. Given the above, the outbuilding sought under the appeal scheme would not be more harmful than the scheme approved through the certificate of lawfulness. This is therefore a material consideration which must attract significant weight, and which in this instance dictates that permission should be granted.

Concerns are raised by an interested party regarding the effect of the development on neighbouring living conditions, with regard to outlook. However, given the outbuildings location along the boundary with [address], I am satisfied that it would not result in unacceptable harm to the outlook of any neighbouring properties. 36 and [address] both have outbuildings to the rear of their gardens, behind the boundary wall. As such, their outlook would not be harmed by the boundary wall. Given the positioning of the wall to the rear of the site, it would not harm the outlook of neighbours along [address]. The Council have similarly concluded in its case officer report that the scheme would not harm the living conditions of neighbours.

An interested party contends that the use of CCTV cameras on the outbuilding and appeal property harms their privacy. However, such matters relating to the use of CCTV cameras are not linked to land use. Regarding concerns that allowing the scheme would set a precedent, each case is determined on its own merits.

An interested party sets out that the outbuilding has the appearance of a self-contained studio flat. The proposal before me is however not for a separate dwelling. As mentioned, a condition to ensure that the outbuilding is used only for purposes incidental to the main dwelling could be used if the appeal were to be allowed.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have used a condition to specify the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have included the block plan shown in the appeal statement as this clearly shows the outbuildings positioning. A condition to control the external materials of the development is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition to ensure that the outbuilding is used only for purposes incidental to the main dwelling is necessary to control other uses which may be unsuitable in this location.

The rear boundary wall would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, the scheme in so far as it relates to the outbuilding, would conflict with the development plan for the reasons set out above. However, in accordance with Section 38(6) of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in this instance the significant weight which I have attached to the material considerations indicate that the conflict with the development plan is outweighed.

Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. S.[name]