Construction of rear outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2018 by David Spencer BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/17/3188035 16 Trinity Road, Barkingside, Ilford IG6 2BQ  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 Tariq Mirza against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 2685/17, dated 3 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 August 2017.  The development proposed is construction of rear outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter and Main Issue 2. The description of the appeal proposal in the banner above is taken from the application form and the appellant’s appeal form. A building has been constructed at the appeal site. It is different to the submitted plans before me which show a proposed set back 1 metre from the boundary with Horace Road. For the avoidance of doubt I have determined the appeal proposal on the basis of the submitted plans as that is the proposal subject to this appeal. 3. The main issue, therefore, is the effect of the proposed rear outbuilding on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. No.16 Trinity Road occupies a corner position with Horace Road. Both No.16 and the corresponding corner property at No.14 Trinity Road have ground floor side extensions flush to the highway boundary on Horace Road but the street scene then opens out by virtue of the rear gardens to Trinity Road. At the end of these gardens there an assortment of outbuildings of varying scales and appearances served by an access road. To the east housing fronts onto Horace Road on both sides. The housing, arranged on an east-west alignment, has consistent front building lines, set back from the highway by small front gardens. In the context of this pattern of development the appeal site is prominent in the street scene of Horace Road in both directions. 5. By virtue of its proposed width, depth and height the appeal proposal would result in an outbuilding of appreciable bulk and massing. Notwithstanding the proposed 1 metre set back it would appear as a prominent and obtrusive feature in the street scene, reducing the sense of openness in the transition from Trinity Road and Horace Road. The proposed building would be conspicuous in views in both directions along Horace Road. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3188035 2 6. I observed the adjoining, large outbuilding to the north. Due to its position this building is generally not visible within the wider street scene described above. It is an uncharacteristically large outbuilding and only moderately larger than the appeal proposal. Whilst I have very little information about its planning history I am not persuaded that the scale of this outbuilding should set the pattern for future development at the rear of Trinity Road. 7. Whilst there are other outbuildings with pitched roofs at the rear of Trinity Road of comparable height to the appeal proposal they are orientated so that the narrower, tapered gable end faces the access road. In contrast the orientation of the appeal proposal would result in a bulky expanse of roof projecting unusually and jarringly forward of the principal building line in Horace Road. Due to the intervening distance to the rear elevation of two storey houses on Trinity Road the appeal proposal would appear as an isolated, bulky intrusion in the street scene, at odds with the spacious gap between houses on Trinity Road and Horace Road. 8. The appellant submits that the proposed 1 metre set back would enable the appeal proposal to be landscaped and screened. In my view it would take some time for landscaping to become established such that it would mitigate the harm identified. Fencing and screening would be ineffectual given the height and massing of the building means it would be an obtrusive projection in the street scene above any screening. I note the submission that a pitch roof may allow for a degree of harmony and consistency not feasible with a flat roof, however, the proposed orientation and scale of the roof pitch means it would be particularly incongruous projection in the street scene. As such a fallback position of a lower flat roof (which I understand has approval under reference 5525/16) would not be more harmful. 9. The appellant has referred me to other examples of outbuildings and garages elsewhere in the Borough that are similarly positioned close to corner locations. None are in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site and they represent only a scattered and limited array of examples. From my observations I find that a number are better related and scaled to their site context such that they offer limited comparison to the appeal scenario. Overall, I find these few examples do not provide a basis for finding the appeal proposal acceptable. There would be a particular harm arising from the scale and position of the appeal proposal in relation to the particular site context at the appeal location. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed rear outbuilding would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy SP3 of the Redbridge Core Strategy 2008 and Policy BD1 of the Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document 2008, which, amongst other things, seek all development to be of a high design standard and of scale, massing and design appropriate to the locality. The appeal proposal would also fail to accord with the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework to secure high quality design. 11. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised including the lack of harm to neighbouring amenities, the appeal is dismissed. David Spencer Inspector.