Appeal 6007336

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence before me presents that planning permission was granted in June 2024 for a single storey side extension, single storey rear extension and canopy over part of the car park. Whilst development was implemented, it was not completed in line with the approved plans. The current appeal is seeking to regularise the development as built.

Development has already taken place in line with the plans submitted to support the appeal. I have assessed the appeal on this basis. [name] note that the frontage of the development includes an advertisement not shown on the submitted plans, this would be subject to a separate advertisement consent regime, which is not within the remit of the appeal before me.

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

The existing building within the appeal site comprises a commercial use within a one and a half storey building, with a gable end addressing the street scene. Irrespective of the development sought through the appeal, the design and use of the building is already somewhat at odds with the prevalent character of development along [address], which, other than the nearby school, is primarily residential in character.

Existing dwellings along the street vary in their design and appearance but are predominantly two storey, semi-detached and terraced properties with hipped, part-hipped or pitched roofs.

Unlike the canopy extension which was previously approved, the appeal development spans the entire width of space between the main building within the appeal site and the neighbouring dwelling. This has created a wide expanse of built form served by a flat roof which, rather than maintaining visual relief within the street scene, fails to integrate successfully with either the existing building within the appeal site or the attached neighbouring buildings.

The obtrusive nature of the development is further emphasised by its materials which are overly commercial in their appearance. [name] accept that the gates are left open when the building is in use, I observed during my site visit that this still leaves a notable proportion of the gates visible in the street scene. The development represents a stark appearance to an otherwise primarily residential frontage, even in the acknowledgement of the slight set back of the garage when compared to the rest of the building.

I do not find that an alternative gate design would fully mitigate the harm of the development. To enclose the full width of the space, the examples provided of alternative gate designs would still appear overly industrialised for the setting within which the appeal site is situated.

Based on the above, I find that the appeal development is harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is therefore contrary to Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), both of which in part seek for development to respond to the existing character of a place, including in terms of its form and use of materials.

I noted the proximity of the school on the opposite side of [address] which establishes the presence of commercial development in the street scene. However, I did not observe, nor has it been presented within the evidence before me, that the school building has elements of its design which are directly comparable to the appeal development, to a degree that it would lead me to alter my overall conclusions.

It is presented that the development was built as a result of security issues and instances of fly tipping. Nevertheless, it has not been demonstrated that there are not other, less harmful means of achieving the same aims. [name] accept the security benefits associated with the development, and the sustainability credentials of the materials used, these matters are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the development is not in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.