Formation of rear outbuilding ancillary to existing dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 May 2021 by Kim Langford Tejrar LLB (Hons) BSc (Hons) PGDIP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/21/3266937 48 Parkway, Seven Kings, Essex IG3 9HU • 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 Naseer Ahmad against the decision of London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 2862/20, dated 10 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 22 October 2020. • The development proposed is ‘formation of rear outbuilding ancillary to existing dwelling house’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for Costs 2. An application for costs was made Mr Naseer Ahmad against London Borough of Redbridge. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The description of development was amended to “Detached rear outbuilding (summary)” after the application was submitted. The original description was sufficiently clear as to the nature of the application and I have utilised that description for the purposes of this appeal. 4. The London Plan 2021 (LP 2021) was published on 1 March 2021 and is now part of the Development Plan. I am satisfied that the equivalent policies in the new plan have broadly the same approach as their counterparts, and they do not alter my conclusions on the matter in any case. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Bungalow Estate Conservation Area (BECA). Reasons 6. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow within a generous plot. The bungalow benefits from an attractive and mature rear garden, which is both deep and wide. The bungalow has sizeable modern extensions to the rear, yet it maintains its modest proportions and traditional architectural detailing to the Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/21/3266937 2 front. It is situated on Parkway within the BECA and is surrounded by similar detached bungalows in generous plots. 7. The BECA Character Appraisal (BECA CA), published in 2014, describes the BECA as comprising of buildings of low heights situated in spacious plots, creating a relaxed and horizontal quality. The BECA CA highlights that both the loose grain, lower density of the area and the variety yet coherent resemblance of the arts and crafts detailing on the bungalow buildings are factors which contribute towards the special character of the BECA. The BECA CA identifies that the earlier bungalows sit within the most generous plots, in contrast to other bungalows within later narrower and shallower plots. The appeal site is thus identifiable as an earlier bungalow, as its plot is notably generous even within the BECA context. 8. The bungalow appears modern, sprawling and massive to the rear due to the degree of extension and alteration it has undergone. It does, however, maintain a horizontal emphasis due to its single storey height. The proposed outbuilding would have a large footprint and flat roof, creating a bulky ‘block’ modern form. This design and form would not be out of place with the appearance of the rear elevation of the bungalow. The BECA Design Guide suggests that outbuildings should not exceed a cumulative floor area of more than 25% of the original floor area of the dwelling. The footprint and bulk of the outbuilding would be significant in proportion to both the original bungalow and its extended form and would exceed the recommended limits in the Design Guide. The distance with the bungalow, capacity of the plot, simple design and horizontal emphasis would go some way to ensuring that the outbuilding would not compete with, nor overbear the bungalow. 9. However, the 25% recommendation of the BECA Design Guide seeks not only to maintain a subordinate relationship with the host dwelling, but also to protect the prevailing character of the area. Although the BECA CA focusses particularly on the public realm and notes the contribution to the significance of the BECA made by spacious streets and verdant landscaping, it also highlights that generous plots also contribute to the spatially planned character of the area. This positively contributes to the significance of the BECA. The BECA CA notes that backland development and the overdevelopment of sites to exploit the potential space has been resisted thus far and as such, the spacious character of the BECA has been maintained. 10. Although the outbuilding would not be visible within the streetscene, it would be visually intrusive within the plot and wider private realm due to its size. Other outbuildings in the immediate vicinity of the plot do not have the same dominant presence or visual intrusiveness as the proposed outbuilding would by virtue of their smaller scale. The private realm of spacious plots makes a positive contribution to the significance of the BECA and the proposed outbuilding, due to its scale, would represent an erosion of that character. This erosion would cause less than substantial harm to the BECA. The incremental increase in size of outbuildings and a proliferation of such outbuildings would lead to a cumulative erosion of the characteristic spacious plots and would result in substantial harm to the BECA. 11. For these reasons, I consider that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the BECA and would result in less than substantial harm to this heritage asset, affecting its significance. The public Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/21/3266937 3 benefit arising from the proposal would be the provision of a private outbuilding for the recreational use of the bungalow’s occupants. However, the harm to the BECA, site and character of the surrounding area, to which I attach significant weight, clearly outweighs this limited benefit, contrary to policies LP26, LP30 and LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan, adopted 2018, policies D1, D4 and HC1 of the LP 2021, as well as the guidance within the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other things, to secure high-quality design that preserves or enhances local distinctiveness and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Conclusion 12. For the reasons stated above, I find that the appeal proposal would fail to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the BECA, resulting in less than substantial harm which is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would conflict with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, as well as the guidance in the Framework, and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Kim Langford Tejrar INSPECTOR