Appeal 6004795

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey garden office at [site address] , Lambeth, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02885/FUL, subject to the schedule of conditions at the end of this decision.

In both the banner heading and decision above, I have used the description of development specified on the notice of decision, as it accurately describes the proposed development without the superfluous information included on the application form.

The appellant has submitted revised plans with the appeal to try and address the reason for refusal. Although they show a minor reduction in the width of the proposed outbuilding, a greater depth of approximately 0.35 metres is also proposed. Notwithstanding that there were no objections raised during the consideration of the planning application, I cannot be certain that there would be no objections raised to the proposed changes, particularly the greater depth. As a result, there would be unfairness by me accepting the proposed plans. Moreover, the appeal process should not be used to address reasons for refusal and evolve a scheme. The appeal has therefore been determined based on the same plans considered by the Council.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area with particular regard to its siting and scale.

No. [address] is a 4-storey terraced property with a modestly sized rear garden; the appeal site relates to a ground floor flat within the property and the rear garden itself. Alongside the rear boundary is a single storey building (approximately 2.5 metres wide clad in corrugated metal sheeting) that runs immediately along the rear boundary of the appeal property and other neighbouring properties. On the opposite side of that single storey building is a tall brick wall and arches forming part of a raised railway line between [name] and Elephant and [name] (which is estimated to be at least 5 metres or so higher than the appeal site). The rear garden of the appeal site is narrow (the existing plans showing it to have a width of 5.25 metres or so), and there are low brick walls (around 1 metre or so high) with spaced horizontal rails above, to each of its sides. Established planting in neighbouring gardens meant I could not see any other outbuildings within the rear gardens of nearby properties in this same terrace.

[name] 4, Building Alterations, Extensions and Retrofit, dated August 2023 (SPD) supports structures in gardens so residents can enjoy and optimise these spaces, providing they don’t cause visual harm, result in an unacceptable loss of gardens, or harm the amenity of adjoining occupiers. It adds that Policy Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035, adopted September 2021 (LLP) says such structures should be at least 1 metre from site boundaries unless site circumstances dictate otherwise, which the SPD says is required to reduce mass near boundaries, and to allow adequate space for maintenance and for boundary treatment.

The proposed single storey garden office would occupy most of the width of the garden, said to leave some 0.3 metres or so to either side boundary, although there would be approximately 1 metre from its rear boundary. It would have a limited depth of 3.4 metres or so, and it would be a lightweight structure set onto a base with no foundations itself, with a height of some 2.5 metres or so, which would likely be lower than the height of the rear building that adjoins the railway wall and arches. As a result, it would be very modest in scale, particularly considering the much taller structures it would be sited amongst, ensuring it would be subordinate to them. Landscaping in other nearby gardens would limit views of it from some neighbouring properties, ensuring it would not be visually dominant. Moreover, any such views would be of a low level and small garden structure that would harmonise with the host property and integrate well into the immediate area, ensuring its siting, scale, and appearance would not be dominant.

Although the proposed garden building would be within 1 metre of the appeal property’s side boundaries, there would be retained spaces to the established boundary treatment, and its scale and mass would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the immediate area.

I note the comments from both main parties regarding outbuildings within the rear gardens of other properties in the immediate area. However, given my findings above, it was not necessary for me to assess how those examples compared to this proposed development in this case.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a satisfactory effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area, and it would comply with LLP policies Q2,Q5, Q8 and Q11 and Policy D3 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], dated March 2021, that amongst other things require the design of new development to respond and enhance local character and context and positively respond to local distinctiveness. including through layout, scale, and patterns of space, be visually attractive, and for domestic extensions and alterations to be subordinate to the host property. The proposed development would also comply with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.

Although there would be some minor conflict with LLP Policy Q14 and the SPD in terms of the proposed development not achieving a 1 metre separation to its side boundaries. The retained gap would allow some space for maintenance, particularly considering the height and design of the boundary treatment. Furthermore, this reduced space would, as set out above, still provide adequate separation ensuring no harmful effects upon the character and appearance of the area from the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed development. In view of this, the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of LLP Policy Q14 and the SPD of providing well-designed development that does not harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

Given that there would be a separation of at least 1 metre between the proposed outbuilding and the rear boundary of the appeal site (railway line side), I am not persuaded that the siting of the proposed development would conflict with Policy Q14 of the LLP and the SPD in this respect.

It is acknowledged that [name] have made comments (and included a plan showing its land ownership in relation to the appeal site), particularly requiring a 3 metre separation between its boundary and the proposed development, for varying reasons relating to their maintenance and access; avoiding damage and loading on cuttings; to prevent drainage discharging onto their property; to prevent land, air or landscaping encroachment; to prevent lighting affecting their network; construction issues such as cranes, and preventing piling and disturbance works. In light of this, and particularly as the appeal property is a flat with access to its rear garden only being through the property itself, a condition relating to a construction method statement, showing how materials would be safely brought and stored at the appeal site is necessary, which would include whether a crane would be required, would address the relevant points raised by [name].

However, in terms of [name] other comments, given that the appeal site abuts an outbuilding on a much lower level than the operational railway line, and that it doesn’t directly adjoin the railway line itself, together with the proposed development’s lightweight construction without foundations, the points raised by [name] would mostly not be relevant considerations in regard to the proposed development. With some of them in this case, likely being property matters between respective landowners. Whether there is a 3-metre gap between the proposed development and [name] landownership or not, in view of the above, the aforementioned condition, and based on my own site observations, the proposed development would be unlikely to interfere with the safe operation and maintenance of the railway network in this case.

A standard implementation condition (1) has been imposed, along with a condition (2) listing the approved plans to provide certainty over what has been approved. To ensure safe construction that does not adversely affect the operation of the nearby railway, a construction method statement condition (3) is necessary. To ensure the appearance of the new outbuilding harmonises with the character and appearance of the area, condition 4 is necessary. Finally, a condition (5) is also necessary to ensure the proposed outbuilding is only used as incidental to the host property and not for any other purpose, to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Given that no works are proposed beyond the new outbuilding, it was not necessary to condition any other works to the exterior of the building are made good.

The proposed development accords with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site location plan at scale 1:1250; existing and proposed block plan (footprint of proposed garden building shown as 4.4 metres by 3.4 metres and coloured green); rear elevation dated 11/9/25; floor plan dated 11/9.25; left side elevation dated 11/9/25; right side elevation dated 11/9/2025; front elevation dated 11/9/2025; and roof plan dated 11/9/2025.

No development shall take place, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide precise details of construction arrangements including: - areas for the parking of vehicles of site operatives; - the loading and unloading of plant and materials; and, - the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (including how the materials are to be transported to the rear garden). The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

The external materials used on the outbuilding hereby approved shall be those specified on the application form.

The development hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the ground floor flat, no. [site address] . End of Schedule of Conditions