Appeal 6003445

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development has been amended to refer to a single-storey outbuilding. This accurately and clearly reflects the scheme shown on the submitted plans.

At my site visit, I saw the outbuilding had already been constructed. From my observations, the development appeared to broadly reflect the submitted plans other than the absence of masonry paint to one elevation and the use of trellis to the boundary fencing. Nonetheless, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of those plans.

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

The appeal site is an end‐of‐terrace three‐storey dwelling with a modest rear garden, set within a recently built estate where a consistent design and limited palette of materials contribute to the prevailing character. The rear gardens of this terrace follow a broadly similar arrangement, which is repeated in the neighbouring terrace to the northwest fronting [address], with both rows backing onto a central pedestrian route serving the gardens of each terrace. This route ends at the appeal property, where the garden extends to adjoin the rear of No. [address] (No. 2).

Land levels fall across the site, with the terrace and gardens to the northwest, including No. 2, sitting at a lower level than the appeal property. The absence of other garden structures and the uniform boundary fencing reinforce the strong sense of openness to the gardens and visual consistency across this part of the estate.

To the southwest, the site adjoins a private communal space serving a four‐storey flat block. Together with the enclosure formed by the terraces, this means the garden of the appeal dwelling is mainly experienced from private areas serving these properties, with limited views available from [address] between the terrace and the flat block.

The development comprises an outbuilding positioned along the southwest side garden boundary, with a section of garden of sufficient depth remaining open and usable between it and the rear wall of the dwelling. Although lower in height than the main three-storey house, it extends to the rear boundary with No. 2 and has its principal (side) elevation facing the pedestrian route between the terraces. The works have involved raising the garden to offset the sloping levels, resulting in the outbuilding sitting at a slightly elevated position. This is most clearly seen at the boundary with No. 2, where the land drops more noticeably and the adjoining part of the building sits discernibly higher than the neighbouring garden. From the pedestrian route, this relationship is readily apparent, while from [address] the elevated position along both the rear and southwest boundary is evident, giving the structure a visually prominent appearance.

The building is finished in yellow‐stock brick, broadly reflecting the palette of the surrounding area, which typically also features darker joinery and detailing. The principal elevation includes a white uPVC window and door and a white sub‐fascia beneath a darker roof fascia. The colour of the sub‐fascia introduces a noticeable contrast within this established palette, and its visibility is increased by the building’s slightly elevated position, making it more readily seen from the terrace gardens and pedestrian route.

The brickwork on the elevation facing No. 2 displays substantial irregularities in coursing and pointing. This is readily visible from the nearest properties in the neighbouring terrace and from [address], resulting in a finish that detracts from the consistent character of the wider estate. Although the plans refer to the use of masonry paint to improve this, I am not persuaded such treatment would successfully disguise the visually discordant brickwork pattern. A painted finish would also appear prominent and out of keeping with the prevailing treatment of buildings within this area, thereby reinforcing the harmful effect.

Taken together, the outbuilding’s slightly elevated position, most noticeably where it adjoins the lower garden of No. 2, and its contrasting detailing and uneven brickwork finish result in a visually prominent and incongruous structure that detracts from the otherwise consistent character and appearance and openness of the gardens to this part of the estate. Although this is currently the only outbuilding within the estate, my findings do not depend on that circumstance.

I acknowledge that the development provides additional ancillary accommodation for the host property and, in that respect, optimises the use of the site. This represents a modest benefit and attracts only limited weight, which does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given, I conclude the development harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021) and LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023) and the Local Plan SPD ‘Housing’ (2016) which, amongst other things, seek developments that respect local character and provide contextually appropriate design.

The Council has not raised any concerns regarding the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Based on the evidence before me, including the proposed use of trellis along the northeast boundary to assist in maintaining privacy, and my observations at the site, I have no reason to disagree. I therefore afford this matter neutral weight in my overall assessment. I also note the measures to secure a sustainable approach to drainage, which similarly carry neutral weight.

As it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, I conclude the scheme would not comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.