Appeal 3308283

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 1) with respect to outlook; • the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed garage would be significantly higher and longer along the boundary with No 1 than the existing outbuilding. Its dimensions and proximity along the boundary mean it would appear as a substantial and conspicuous structure when viewed from the neighbouring garden. The structure would dominate the garden space and be detrimental to the living conditions of occupiers of No 1 when using their garden.

The effect of the proposed garage must be assessed with regard to the surrounding context as it exists, irrespective that this likely arose as a result of previous decisions by the Council. The rear garden of No 1 is enclosed by the existing properties at [address] and [address]. The proposed garage would exacerbate this sense of enclosure by effectively resulting in the rear garden of No 1 being enclosed along the length of three of its four sides. The outlook from the rear garden of No 1 would therefore be unacceptably harmed.

The trees along the boundary of the appeal site are predominantly adjacent to No 7. As such, they have a limited effect on the rear garden of No 1 and their removal would not alter my conclusions above as to the effect of the proposed garage. While the proposed garage may not result in the loss of sunlight to No 1, this would not outweigh the harm I have identified above in respect of outlook.

Neither party has provided the email or drawings referred to regarding sightlines from No 1. However, the Council has not raised any concerns with regard to the effect on the living conditions within the dwelling at No 1 and I have no reason to find otherwise.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the existing occupiers of No 1 with respect to outlook. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan adopted April 2017 (CLLP) Policy LP26 which requires the amenities of neighbouring land to not be unduly harmed by development and Hykeham Neighbourhood Plan (made September 2018) (NP) Policy HNP1 which seeks to refuse development that will result in an unacceptable impact.

The local and national policies referred to by the Council require development to respect, respond and relate well to their surroundings. However, there is no specific requirement for a residential outbuilding to be subservient or to demonstrate that it is visually ancillary to the host property. It is the policies of the development plan, not convention, against which development proposals are to be assessed.

The considerable scale of the proposed garage has been acknowledged above. However, at my site visit, I observed that there is not a consistent character to the appeal site and its immediate surrounds. Plot sizes, layouts and orientations vary. The neighbouring property at [address] includes an attached double garage with rooms above which face towards the access road.

The proposed garage would be particularly tall for such a structure. However, given the surrounding context, the position of the proposed garage to the rear of the site, screened by much of the existing dwelling and the very limited public views, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be limited.

Consequently, I conclude the appeal proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with CLLP Policy LP26 which requires development to take the character and local distinctiveness of the area into consideration and NP Policy HNP1 which requires development to not have an unacceptable impact. It also would not conflict with the advice at paragraphs 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Design Guide characteristic C1, which requires development to understand, relate and respond to its context, character and identity.

The Council has not raised any concerns with regard to the single storey extension aspect of the proposal, and I saw nothing during my site visit to lead me to a different conclusion.

I acknowledge that the appeal proposal has been designed specifically to allow for storage of the appellant’s vehicles, and that, overall, sufficient private amenity space would be retained to the host property. However, these matters do not overcome the harms I have identified above.

It has been brought to my attention that the site benefits from permitted development rights which provide a fallback position. However, no details of such a scheme are before me and without such information a full and detailed comparison with the case before me cannot be made. Additionally, there is no evidence that the fallback position is a greater than theoretical possibility or that if the appeal is dismissed the fallback would be pursued. As a consequence, I find the suggested fallback position to have limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

I have concluded that the appeal proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 1 and I attach significant weight to this harm. [name] have found the effect on the character and appearance of the area to be acceptable, this, and the other material considerations, would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development as a whole would not accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.