Appeal 3301442

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for detached outbuilding to rear, housing garage and garden room and store within roof space at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 2021/0940, dated 2 July 2021 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Site Plan – (Dwg. No.MMM002-001 Rev.A), [name] – (Dwg. No.MMM002-003 Rev.A) and [name] – (Dwg. No.MMM002-004 Rev.A).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The proposed outbuilding hereby permitted shall be used for domestic ancillary purposes in association with the application dwelling [site address] , and shall not be used for any trade/business purposes, nor as a separate residential use/annex and shall not be severed at a later date to create a separate planning unit.

I have determined this appeal based upon the Council’s description of development as a “detached outbuilding to rear, housing garage and garden room and store within roof space” because it is a more accurate specification for the proposal.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

No. [site address] is a semi-detached dwelling located near the end of a cul-de-sac. It has a rear dormer roof extension and a single storey rear extension. There is a single storey outbuilding at the end of its relatively long rear garden. Land to the rear of the appeal site is currently the subject of residential development which is under construction.

The Council has concluded that the proposed outbuilding would have no significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours and in that respect would comply with Barnsley Local Plan policy GD1 and its supplementary planning document: [name]. I see no reason to disagree in view of the location of the proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden, with adequate separation distance from neighbouring dwellings. The proposed outbuilding would have a blank wall and roof facing the adjacent development site, which is situated at a slightly higher land level. In view of the scale and orientation of the building there would be no significant loss of light to the adjacent land.

The proposed outbuilding would replace the existing outbuilding and would have a slightly larger footprint. It would have a pitched roof with a ridge height of around 5.5 m and an eaves height of approximately 2.8 m. It is proposed to be built in red brick with a grey plain tile roof. The Council considers that the internal footprint would be excessive for a domestic outbuilding. It has compared the internal floorspace to that of a 2-bedroom bungalow with the minimum floorspace defined as 62 m2 in the [name]. However, the proposal is not for use as a dwelling, and residential use may be restricted through the imposition of an appropriate condition.

The footprint of the proposed outbuilding would only be marginally larger than the footprint of the existing outbuilding. I also note that there is no floorspace/footprint guidance in the Council’s guidance for domestic outbuildings in its supplementary planning document: [name] and [name]. The eaves height, at around 2.8 m, would be similar to the height of the existing outbuilding and only 0.3 m greater than specified in the design guidance.

The Council also considers that the general size, scale and height of the proposed outbuilding would not be sympathetic to the main building. However, the main building has significant scale and bulk, particularly because of its additions including the large rear roof dormer. The outbuilding would therefore be proportionate in size to the main building. There would be a significant separation distance between the outbuilding and the main building so that they would not normally be viewed in conjunction with each other. The Council’s design guidance for outbuildings accepts that in some circumstances, such as where a detached garage is set within a large curtilage, it may be possible to use the roof space for storage, as in the appeal proposal.

Overall, I consider that the proposal would have no significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore not conflict with Local Plan policy D1 which seeks to encourage high quality design and development which respects local character and distinctiveness. It would also not conflict with advice for outbuildings in the supplementary planning document: [name].

Issues raised concerning the ownership of the rear boundary wall of the appeal site, potential effect on its stability and the requirements of the [name] etc Act 1996 are matters for resolution between the relevant landowners and not for determination as part of this appeal.

In addition to the standard condition for the commencement of development a condition is imposed to confirm the approved plans. A condition is included to ensure that the proposed brickwork and roof tiles match those used in the main building in the interest of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. I have also included a condition suggested by the Council that the use of the outbuilding should be ancillary to the use of the dwelling in order to ensure that the Council has control over any proposed self-contained residential or business use.

I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.