Appeal 6004051

The appeal is dismissed.

At the site visit, I was unable to access the appeal property itself. However, I was able to view the appeal site in its entirety from the rear garden of No [address], which provided clear views of the full extent of the site and the relevant context. I am satisfied that this afforded me a sufficient understanding of the proposal and its relationship to neighbouring properties, and that my observations enabled full consideration of the matters relevant to the appeal.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at No [address] (No 69), with regard to enclosure and overbearing.

The appeal site comprises the rear garden of a detached house within a residential area characterised by similar dwellings set within relatively spacious plots, where rear gardens contribute positively to the prevailing pattern of development and sense of openness.

Both the Council and the appellant have referenced the 50% site coverage limitation for permitted development, with disagreement as to whether the proposal would fall within this threshold. However, this limitation does not form part of the development plan and is therefore not determinative in assessing whether the proposal would constitute an acceptable quantum of development.

The proposed development would introduce a further detached outbuilding within the rear garden, in addition to an existing rear extension and a previously approved and largely constructed outbuilding. Whilst the proposed building would be suitably modest in isolation, the resulting combined presence of structures would result in a substantial spread of built form across the rear garden. From my observations, the development would result in these structures cumulatively extending along a significant portion of the shared boundary with No 69 and occupying a significant proportion of the rear garden as a whole. This would create a largely continuous built edge along this boundary, which would be at odds with the more sporadic and subordinate siting of outbuildings in the surrounding area.

Furthermore, the proposal would not maintain meaningful separation between the various built elements on the site. Instead, it would contribute to a consolidation of built form within the rear garden, diminishing the visual and spatial distinction between the dwelling and ancillary structures. This would conflict with Policy DMD12 of the Development Management Document (DMD) [name] 2014 (the DMD), which requires outbuildings to remain appropriately scaled to their context.

Whilst the building would serve an acceptable ancillary function to the dwelling, the proposal would fail to respond appropriately to its context and would not respect the character of its surroundings. The extent, siting and cumulative massing of development would result in an unduly intensive form of development that is not reflective of the established character of the area. As such, it would be contrary to [name] DMD6 and DMD37, which require the scale and form of development to be appropriate to its context and surroundings.

Taking these matters together, I conclude that the proposal would result in an overly dominant and intensive form of development that would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan March 2021 (the LP), Policies DMD6, DMD12 and DMD37 of the DMD, and Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (the CS), which collectively seek to ensure that development is high-quality, design-led, is appropriate to its context, respects the prevailing character and pattern of development, and safeguards both the visual amenity and spatial qualities of the surrounding environment. It would also conflict with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which have similar aims.

The siting of the proposed outbuilding would result in additional built development extending along a substantial proportion of the shared boundary with No 69. Taken together with the existing rear extension and outbuilding, these structures would form a largely continuous mass of development along this boundary, creating a pronounced sense of enclosure when viewed from the rear windows and garden of No 69. This would reduce the existing outlook from No 69, replacing what is currently experienced as a relatively open garden backdrop with an extended and consolidated built edge.

At my site visit, I observed that the rear garden of the appeal site lies on lower ground relative to that of No 69. Whilst this could, in some circumstances, lessen the perceived height and visual impact of development when viewed from the neighbouring property, there is no convincing evidence before me regarding site levels, or to indicate that any level difference would meaningfully mitigate the overall effect of the development.

The appellant has indicated that no objections were received during the application process. However, the absence of objections does not in itself demonstrate that the development would have no harmful effects, and I must assess the effects based on the evidence before me and my observations on site.

Taking these matters together, I find that the proposal, when considered cumulatively with the existing development, would give rise to an unacceptably heightened sense of enclosure and would appear overbearing when experienced from No 69. I therefore conclude that this would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property, and conflict with Policies D4 and D5 of the LP, Policies DMD12 and DMD37 of the DMD, and Policies CP4 and CP30 of the CS. Collectively, these policies require development to be of a high-quality, design-led standard that protects the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and remains appropriate to its context. It would also conflict with the relevant provisions of the Framework, which have similar aims.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other considerations to indicate it should be determined other than in accordance with the plan. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.