Appeal 3294869

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw at the site visit that the summerhouse was substantially complete and therefore consent is sought retrospectively. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036 was adopted in March 2022 and consequently is the development plan for the determination of this appeal. As a result of the similarity of the objectives of the relevant policies in the old and new Local Plan, I am satisfied that no party is disadvantaged.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regards to privacy and outlook and (ii) the character and appearance of the area.

The summerhouse is located in the rear garden of the property, a substantial brick-built dwelling, immediately adjacent with the neighbouring property, [address]. The gardens of properties fronting on to Swansfield Park Road back on to an open grassed area and this part of Swansfield Park Road rises steadily, such that residents enjoy an open outlook to the rear.

At the site visit I noted that, in common with many gardens in the area, the main garden area of the appeal property is situated at a slightly higher level than the house and the location of the summerhouse is notably higher than the house and garden at No.60.

The submitted plans show that the summerhouse, while including an open element, is of a substantial size and scale and is located in close proximity to the common boundary with No.60.

As a result of the change in levels, the proximity of the summerhouse to the shared boundary and the relatively low level of the boundary treatment between the summerhouse and No.60, users of the summerhouse are afforded direct views into and over almost all of the rear garden of No.60 and the rear elevation of that property. Furthermore, I saw that users of the summerhouse are afforded partial views of the rear gardens of other properties further down the hill.

Furthermore, as a result of the size, scale and proximity of the summerhouse to the boundary with No.60, the appeal scheme would dominate the otherwise open outlook to the rear of the property and would thus harm the outlook of the occupiers of No.60.

Consequently, the appeal scheme has an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regards to privacy and outlook contrary to [name] 1 and QOP 2 of the Northumberland Local Plan and Policy HD5 of the Alnwick and Denwick Neighbourhood Plan that, amongst other matters, requires that new development protect the living conditions of the occupiers of residents.

The area is typically suburban in character with open spaces to the front and rear of the dwellings that front on to the road. The rear gardens are of a reasonable size and generally in proportion to the dwelling.

The summerhouse subject of this appeal is located within the rear garden and as such is screened from the street by the appeal dwelling and adjacent properties. Nonetheless the summerhouse is widely visible from the rear elevations and gardens of neighbouring properties and the grassed area to the rear.

At the site visit I saw that other properties in the local area had various outbuildings in their rear gardens. Those that I saw were however of a markedly smaller size and scale than the appeal scheme and that the appeal scheme is in itself of a considerable size and scale.

Therefore, it is my planning judgement that the appeal scheme, as a result of its size and scale would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to policies QOP1 and QOP2 of the Northumberland Local Plan and Policy H5 of the Alnwick and Denwick Neighbourhood Plan that, amongst other matters, requires that new development is of a high standard of design and preserves the character of the area.

The appellant states that “If the structure was 500mm lower or move 2m from the boundary to comply with permitted development the design, plan size and visual appearance would remain much the same as already constructed”. Such a proposal is not however before me and a reduction in the height of the summer house and a greater separation to the common boundary with the neighbouring property would reduce the harm of the summerhouse to both the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbours. Therefore, I note the appellants comments with regards permitted development rights, but this does not outweigh the harm I have identified previously.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.