Outbuilding to rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2019 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W1905/D/18/3218761 36 Cromwell Avenue, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, EN7 5DN • 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 Mehrzad Voghufi against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council. • The application Ref 07/18/0781/HF dated 13 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 October 2018. • The development proposed is an outbuilding to rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Council states that the application the subject of this appeal is the result of a compliance case1 relating to building work not being in accordance with an approved planning permission2. This previous planning permission, granted on 13 July 2013, was for an outbuilding in the rear garden of the appeal property. The appellant acknowledges that this previous permission has expired. 3. The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place. 4. The description of development is taken from the decision notice. The application form refers to “1 copy of new plan (porch additional) outbuilding to rear garden. Copy of certificate of completion. Attached.” Main Issue 5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The appeal property is an end-terrace two storey dwelling. It is located in a residential area. Like other houses along Cromwell Avenue in this location, the appeal property is set back from the road behind a short front garden and has a long garden to the rear. 1 Ref: COM/18/0158. 2 Ref: 07/13/0460/HF. Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/18/3218761 2 7. To the front, Cromwell Avenue comprises a densely developed urban street, characterised by the presence of terraced housing with parking areas and or small garden areas and occasional street trees, separating houses from the road. However, to the rear, the presence of long gardens adjoining one another serves to create something of a “green oasis,” with gardens largely characterised by the presence of patios, open lawns, planting and trees. 8. Whilst, during my site visit, I observed the presence of built features including garden fences, sheds and outbuildings, these tend to comprise relatively unobtrusive features of a scale and construction in keeping with their garden surroundings. Consequently, the area to the rear of the appeal property has distinctly green, open and spacious qualities that combine to make a positive contribution to the local environment. 9. The development the subject of this appeal comprises a very large outbuilding which runs for a considerable length and fills much of the width of the rear garden. Whilst single storey, the building has a very tall single apex tiled roof. It also has a large flat roofed porch element which projects to the front. 10.As a consequence of its scale and form, the outbuilding appears as a large and substantial building. Features including windows, letter box, door knocker and doors to the front and rear, lend the construction a distinctly residential appearance. 11.Taking all of the above into account, the outbuilding draws attention to itself as a large and obtrusive feature that appears largely out of context with its garden surroundings. It does not have the qualities of an ancillary garden-scale outbuilding common to other sheds and outbuildings apparent in the surrounding area, but rather, it appears prominently, as an unduly large and bulky construction that dominates its surroundings. Together, the porch and the main outbuilding combine to create an intensity of development that appears out of keeping with the area’s green, open and spacious qualities. 12.Consequently, I consider that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan3 saved Policies H6, H8, HD14 and HD16, which together amongst other things, protect local character. Conclusion 13.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR 3 Local Plan Second Review (2005).