Single storey building at the rear of the property incorporating a garage and gym

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 November 2017 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 8 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/D/17/3182881 70 Lavender Avenue, Mitcham CR4 3HH  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Pykala against the decision of the London Borough of Merton Council.  The application Ref 17/P1228, dated 21 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 May 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey building at the rear of the property incorporating a garage and gym. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on the living conditions of the residents of 68 and 72 Lavender Avenue with regard to light and outlook when within their gardens. Reasons 3. This property and the neighbours to each side have long rear gardens. To the rear is a private access track and beyond that are the similarly long rear gardens of properties on Eveline Road. Many of these properties have structures within their rear gardens close to the access track. Although I understand that access is not currently available to all residents that adjoin the rear access, it nevertheless has the character of a residential rear access area with high fences and gates; and an array of garages and other outbuildings of various sizes and materials. 4. Generally, the scale and design of the building would not be out of keeping in this particular area. Subject to the use of good quality materials, it would be a relatively positive feature amongst the variety of other structures in the vicinity. I do not find conflict with the design objectives of Policy CS 14 of the Core Planning Strategy 2011. 5. The overall height of the building would make it a relatively prominent feature when within the adjoining residential properties and gardens. However, it would be situated at the very end of this long garden and it would be a considerable distance from the dwellings and the areas of garden that are most Appeal Decision APP/T5720/D/17/3182881 2 closely related to the houses. I am mindful also that no objections have been received from the immediate neighbours. Despite this however, I have concerns that the high gables of the building would be immediately adjacent to each neighbouring garden. Their full height would be clearly evident and the structure would be overbearing when immediately adjacent. 6. There appears to be no reason why the building could not be set further in from the boundaries. Furthermore, the roof could be designed so that the low eaves would be closest to the boundaries without an overall increase in the ridge height. As a differing design and limited alterations to the scale and position of the structure would substantially reduce the impact on the immediate neighbours, I find that the proposal represents poor design. It would be overbearing when close by in the neighbouring gardens and it would result in an unnecessary amount of shading. It would therefore result in conflict with the amenity requirements of Policy DM D2(a)(v) of the Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps 2014. As the policy generally accords with the amenity requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, I afford it considerable weight. 7. Reference has been made to other structures in the vicinity and other decisions reached by the Council. I do not have the full detail of the permissions granted and I am not satisfied that the existing structures have the same design shortcomings or relationships with adjacent residents. I must in any event consider this proposal on its own merits. 8. Concern has been raised regarding the rights of the appellant to access the property from the rear but this is a private matter that has not influenced my decision. 9. I have considered the matters put forward by the appellant but they are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR