For an outbuilding to the rear of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/17/3191904 237 Ley Street, Ilford, IG1 4BN  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 Masood Anwar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 4327/17 dated 11 September 2017 was refused by notice dated 10 November 2017.  The development proposed is for an outbuilding to the rear of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outbuilding to the rear of the property at 237 Ley Street, Ilford, IG1 4BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 4327/17, dated 11 September 2017 and the plans submitted with it. Procedural Matters 2. I have utilised part of the description of development from the application form to describe the proposal more succinctly. 3. The development as applied for had already been externally completed and I have considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the appeal development on (1) the living conditions of the occupiers of the host and neighbouring properties with regard to outlook, and (2) the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area. Reasons Living Conditions 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling which is situated in an area that contains a mix of semi-detached and terrace properties. The appeal dwelling has been extended, including through a single storey rear addition. This appeal development is for a single storey outbuilding at the end of the rear garden. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3191904 2 6. I was able to see at the time of my visit the size of the outbuilding and that it extends across most of the width of the plot, with a short set in from the side and rear boundaries. I also note its height, which the submitted plans identify as extending to 4m high. Despite these dimensions, the outbuilding has an eaves height of 2.5m and a dual-pitched roof, which slopes away from the host and neighbouring properties. As such, and given the separation distance to the rear of No’s 235 and 239 Ley Street, I do not consider that there is an undue overbearing impact. 7. As the appeal property has been extended, the outbuilding is located closer to and has a more direct relationship with its rear than the two neighbouring dwellings. However, given its single storey form, I do not find this relationship to be necessarily harmful to the outlook of the appeal property’s occupants. The appeal dwelling has a number of windows and a partially glazed door serving the ground floor at the back of property, which would continue to provide an adequate outlook above and beyond the outbuilding and to the side over the boundary treatment. 8. I therefore conclude that the appeal development does not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of the host and neighbouring properties with regard to outlook. It does not conflict with Strategic Policy 3 of the Council’s Core Strategy or Policy BD1 of the Council’s Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document, which require, amongst other matters, development to respect the amenity of adjoining properties. Character and Appearance 9. The Council have also raised concerns that the appeal development is out of scale and character with this appeal property and surrounding dwellings. There are other outbuildings in the rear gardens of properties along Ley Street and although the appeal development may be larger than some of these, it is separated from the main house by its rear garden. I find this separation, as well as its single storey form, ensures it sits sympathetically with the two-storey main building and neighbouring dwellings. 10. For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal development does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property or the area. There is therefore no conflict with Strategic Policy 3 of the Redbridge Core Strategy or Policy BD1 of the Council’s Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document, which require, amongst other matters, for development to respect the amenity of a locality and not dominate the existing building. Other Matters 11. The Council have raised concern that the amount of usable rear garden has been significantly reduced by the rear extension and the appeal development. Reference has also been made to Policy BD4 of the Council’s Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document requirement of 20 sq. metres amenity space per habitable room. I have not however been provided with further details of the number of habitable rooms to make an assessment against this policy. However, the site does retain a sufficiently large private garden area to provide for day to day activities such as hanging the washing Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3191904 3 and providing a space for siting out in. I do not therefore find the appeal development to be unacceptable in this regard. 12. The appellant has made reference to a number of appeals and what is said to be inconsistent decision making by the Council. However, none of the referenced appeal cases appear to be in the same Borough as the appeal development. In any event, I have limited details of the full circumstances of those cases and I can confirm that I have dealt with the appeal before me on its own merits. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above and having taken into account all other matters raised, including concerns in relation to noise and disturbance, I conclude the appeal should be allowed. Conditions 14. Although the Council have suggested the imposition of a standard implementation condition as well as conditions requiring matching materials and development to be completed in accordance with the approved plans, the development has already been externally completed. I therefore consider none of these conditions are necessary. F Rafiq INSPECTOR