Appeal 6003636

The appeal is dismissed.

During the appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted a set of revised plans which were not those determined by the Council. However, the appeals procedure guide makes clear an appeal should not be used to evolve a scheme to overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal and instead a fresh planning application should usually be made.1 The revised plans seek to alter the size of the terrace (drawing no. A25.001 - 805) and amend the structure introducing vertical sliding guillotine glazed screens set within frames (drawing no. A25.001 - 800F). However, this does not have the reduced terrace shown on drawing no. 805. Drawing no. A25.001 - 801A is a section to show this. In light of the above changes, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the same plans which the Council determined at the planning application stage (drawing no’s. A25.001 - 800E, A25.001 - 801, A25.001 - 810A.

The appellant seeks to vary the approved plans condition to reflect the development as built, rather than in accordance with the approved plans. The changes the appellant wants to make are the enlargement of the seating area and 1 Paragraph 16.1 of the Procedural Guide Planning Appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought. the addition of a Perspex enclosure which would have the effect of creating a front extension to the building.

The main issues in respect of this appeal are the effect of the development on: • highway safety; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a restaurant and part of the adjacent footpath which lies on the eastern side of [name], a busy thoroughfare. The parade comprises a small row of shops, takeaways, cafes and restaurants opposite Crystal Palace Park.

Matters relating to the requirement of the appellant to obtain prior approval and a ‘Stopping up Order’ from the local highway authority prior to development relate to a separate process and do not form part of my assessment.

It is noted that the development reduces the space for pedestrians between the tactile crossing and the side elevation of the terrace from that permitted in the original application to less than 1.5m, and that the tactile crossing is deeper than the standard depth. [name] have not been provided with evidence of the basis of the requirement to maintain 1.5m from the end of the tactile crossing clear of obstruction, it was clear from my site visit that the distance from the end of the tactile paving to the side elevation of the terrace was limited and the development causes restriction to pedestrian movement on the pavement, especially to those visually impaired or pushing prams or any form of mobility aid. Whilst it is important to make sure the depth of the tactile crossing is deep enough, it is equally important to make sure there is sufficient space at the end of the crossing free from obstruction to enable pedestrians to move freely and not be prevented from exiting the crossing.

Whilst there remains sufficient distance for pedestrians to manoeuvre between the edge of the footway and the terrace and the stepped nature of the terrace allows pedestrians greater pavement width in the approach to the crossing for longer, the obstruction of the lamppost and the pinch point between the edge of the terrace and the lamppost in an area that is likely to be well used by pedestrians makes the space beyond the end of the tactile crossing even more important.

I note the road the crossing serves is a minor road providing access to a small quantum of staff parking and is therefore likely to be lightly trafficked, limiting pedestrian and vehicular conflict. However, the road is on a bend and it is important that pedestrians are able to remain clear of the road at all times. Any form of blockage at the end of the tactile paving would be a highway safety issue as it would prevent pedestrians being able to exit the crossing.

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, the development has an adverse effect on the safe operation of the highway and consequently is harmful to highway safety. The development therefore conflicts with the objectives of policies Q1 and T2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (LLP) which seek to deliver an improved environment for pedestrians and seek improvements to existing accessibility provision.

The approved development allowed outdoor seating under a retractable awning on a raised deck, enclosed by 1m high railings. This retained the existing building line of the shop frontages, enabled the shopfront to remain largely visible from the street scene and was in keeping with the adjacent café.

The development as built has fully enclosed the outdoor seating area, creating a front extension beyond the existing building line and providing a closed frontage to the street scene. The development has also obscured views of the shopfront and is not in keeping with the prevailing character of the parade of shops.

In conclusion, the development has had an adverse effect on the character of the area and is contrary to the objectives of policy Q5 of the LLP which seeks to sustain the local distinctiveness of Lambeth through built form, amongst other considerations.

[name] note the appellants background as an independent restaurant serving the local community and the reasoning for wanting a fully enclosed seating space to allow more all year round dining and to spread demand throughout the day and therefore improving the viability of the premises, this is not a material planning consideration I can take into account. In any event, I do not have substantive financial evidence of the difference the development makes to the viability of the premises when compared to the pre-existing restaurant and the approved scheme and why, without the development as built, the enterprise would not be viable.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.