Replacement of existing detached garage with a two storey outbuilding, with rear dormer roof extension in order to accommodate a workshop at ground floor and office space in the proposed roof space that would remain ancillary to the existing residential property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2018 by D Jackman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/D/18/3213526 10 Leyspring Road, Leytonstone, London, E11 3BX • 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 M Akuji against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref 181603, dated 5 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 July 2018. • The development proposed is the replacement of existing detached garage with a two storey outbuilding, with rear dormer roof extension in order to accommodate a workshop at ground floor and office space in the proposed roof space that would remain ancillary to the existing residential property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. On the planning appeal form the appellant has stated that the description of development has been changed and a different wording has been entered from the one given on the planning application. The appellant has stated that no objection is raised in respect of the revised description. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the description given on the appeal form and Council’s decision notice. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site relates to a two storey end of terrace house, situated on the corner of Leyspring Road with Stanmore Road. The property has a small rear garden with a garage sited at the end of the garden adjoining the boundary with 12 Stanmore Road. The remainder of the rear garden is hard surfaced. 5. The side boundary of the house, fronting Stanmore Road, is enclosed by a brick wall with solid security gates fronting the detached garage. Despite these boundary features the garage is visible from Stanmore Road together with views from the rear of neighbouring properties. Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/18/3213526 2 6. The development would result in a building which would have a gable ended pitched roof, with two rooflights in the front roof slope facing Stanmore Road and a dormer window with obscure glazing to the rear. The ground floor would be used as a workshop with locked secure storage and a WC, whilst the upper floor, accommodated in the roof space, would be an office area with storage. 7. The area is characterised by long rows of terraced houses with openness created by the rear gardens at each corner of the mostly rectangular and occasionally triangular blocks. Existing outbuildings do not unduly diminish the sense of openness by reason of their modest height and bulk. Each gap in the terraces provides visual relief between the rows and in this densely developed area this benefit is an integral part of the streetscene. 8. Such a gap is naturally created between the host property and the neighbouring property at 12 Stanmore Road and the existing garage, by reason of its height, does not unduly diminish this. The resultant building however, would disrupt this gap, and would be taller than any other outbuilding I observed with a significant bulk and massing in the gabled roof space to accommodate a useable office area. 9. To my mind, the resultant building would be atypically big and bulky and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This disruption would be exacerbated by the bulk of its roof space with the gable elevation being dominant and particularly prominent when viewed from Stanmore Road. 10. The appellant argues that the scale of the adjoining flank of 12 Stanmore Road is greater than the proposed outbuilding. Whilst this is correct, my main concern is that of the disruption to the gap between the buildings and the impact on the existing openness which, in this location, makes a significant contribution to the character of the area. I therefore disagree that its scale, height and form will integrate well with the general streetscene for the reasons already provided. 11. I appreciate that the footprint of the building will be largely unaltered however my concerns do not relate to the footprint. I note that the development is set back from the street boundary. However, this point does not overcome my concern about the bulk and height of the resulting building. Therefore, my opinion remains that the resulting building will indeed be overly prominent as viewed from Stanmore Road. 12. I have also had regard to the appellant’s comments that the development would allow comfortable home working without having to compromise space within the family home. However these benefits do not outweigh the identified harm that the overall scale of the proposed building and its prominence would cause to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. 13. For the above reasons the development would be contrary to Policy CS15 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM29 of the Waltham Forest Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) which seek, amongst other matters, to create positive, responsive and inclusive environments, including buildings and spaces of high standard of design and quality, that contribute to the distinctiveness of Waltham Forest’s neighbourhoods and respond to their context in terms of scale, height and massing. Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/18/3213526 3 Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, and taking account of all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. D Jackman INSPECTOR