Appeal 6007269

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey rear outbuilding for use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house at [site address] , Stratford, Newham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00199/HH 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 drawing Nos 01, 02, 03 and 04 and the Location Plan.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials listed on the application form.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describes the development in a more concise manner than that on the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by this course of action.

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

[address] and the surrounding roads are characterised by 2 storey terraced dwellings which sit on modest plots. Many properties have been extended at the rear and there are numerous examples of properties that have outbuildings within their rear gardens.

The appeal site is a mid-terrace dwelling that is typical of many of the surrounding properties. It has been extended at the rear with a dormer window installed within the roof and a ground floor extension. Decking has been laid across the full extent of the rear garden.

Consent is sought for the erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden which would be utilised as a home office. The outbuilding would be a single storey structure that would be wooden clad and have a flat roof. The outbuilding would have a modest height and would cover less than half of the existing rear garden. As such, it would not overly dominate the open space around the dwelling. Whilst it is accepted that the size of this rear garden has been reduced over time, the combination of the proportionately sized existing rear extension and the proposed outbuilding would not overwhelm the original dwelling or appear incongruous within the wider area. Adequate amenity space would remain to serve the occupiers of the dwelling.

Given its location at the end of the garden, the outbuilding would retain a level of separation from the host dwelling. Also, by virtue of its modest massing and scale the outbuilding would be clearly subservient to the dwelling.

By virtue of the terraced nature of the street, there would be no public views of the proposed development. Any views of the outbuilding would be limited to occupiers of the surrounding dwellings and even then, visibility would be restricted to small sections of wooden cladding visible above the existing boundary fence. Furthermore, some of the outbuildings are not dissimilar in size to the appeal proposals. Considering this context the outbuilding would sit comfortably within its surroundings without any adverse impact.

I conclude that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It would accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) and Policies SP1 and SP3 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan (adopted December 2018). Amongst other matters, these policies seek to enhance local context, positively respond to local distinctiveness with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions and be of high quality.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt. To ensure that the character and appearance of the area is maintained the development should be completed in the external materials listed on the application form.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.