Appeal 3328442

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit construction of the outbuilding had commenced, yet it was not complete.

The appellant has put forward proposed amended plans to alter the roof design, to have a shallower roof pitch and a lower ridgeline of approximately 500mm compared to the plans considered by the Council. In respect of the proposed amended plans, I have had regard to the Holborn Studies Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2017) judgement, which is a more recent relevant case in respect of the consideration of amended plans than the Wheatcroft judgement. As the proposed amended plans reduce the overall height of the outbuilding by less than 1 metre, this does not make a substantial difference to the proposed development and there would be no unfairness caused to any party by such amendments. I have therefore had regard to the amended plans in reaching my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a corner plot, with garden to the side, front and rear. [address] is a steeply sloping road, with the appeal site part way up the slope. There is an existing tall evergreen hedge along part of the boundary with [address], adjacent to where the outbuilding is to be located. Around the remainder of the rear/side garden boundary there is a standard close boarded fence of approximately 1.8 metres high.

The design of the proposed outbuilding, whilst single storey, would include a raised floor area, to accommodate the existing changes in ground levels across the site and would be a tall structure, with high walls and roof, extending up to a height of some 5 metres above ground level. This together with its position forward of the host dwelling and the front elevations of neighbouring dwellings continuing down [address] (No 104 and 102 onwards) would result in the building appearing visually prominent in the street scene.

Whilst the existing boundary hedge would be adjacent to the outbuilding and obscure most of it from immediate views to the side in [address], the end gables of the outbuilding would be very prominent from either side on approaching it along [address].

The proposed revised roof design of the outbuilding would reduce its overall height by approximately 500mm. However, the eaves level and other dimensions of the building would be as originally proposed. As a result, the building would not appear significantly less prominent in the street scene than the original proposal. Furthermore, the altered roof design, whilst lower would not appear as proportionate in design and form to the remainder of the building, when compared to the original design, making the roof appear squat and contrived.

There are examples of outbuildings in the surrounding area, which are forward of the dwelling building lines and visible within the street scene. However, such buildings tend to be much lower structures than that proposed and, include flat or very shallow pitched roofs that do not appear discernibly above the boundary fences.

Also, the examples provided by the appellant, including along [address], [address] and [address] are not comparable to the appeal proposal, as they are not within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site and, have a different site context of a continuing line of garages and sheds, set forward of the elevations of the host dwellings. In comparison, [address] is a wider, more open through road, that typically does not have many outbuildings forward of the building line that defines its character. I therefore only give limited weight to the presence of these other buildings.

The examples of development which are forward of the original building line at corner plots are noted. But these are not directly comparable to the proposal as they do not lie within the immediate vicinity of the site and relate to different forms of development. The example at [address] relates to a side two-storey extension, and the development to the side of [address] is for a new dwelling. Whilst this new dwelling is forward of the original building line, there is a hedge that continues along the length of the side boundary and the property does not appear overly isolated or prominent in its location, particularly as the road/ground levels along this part of [address] differ to that surrounding the appeal site. These other examples therefore have little weight.

[name] acknowledge that there was a shed in the general location of the proposed outbuilding, the photos provided show that such previous building was smaller and had a much lower height than the proposal and did not appear overly prominent in the street scene.

In view of the above, the proposed outbuilding would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] Part 1 Local Plan (2014) and [name] 34 and LPD 43 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan (2018), which amongst other matters, require development to respect the character and appearance of an area.

I recognise that the appeal site is not within a Conservation Area, it is not a listed building, and nor is it visible from the Green Belt. I also note there are no neighbour or highway objections. However, the lack of such concerns does not count positively in favour of the appeal proposal.

I appreciate the proposed outbuilding would leave sufficient remaining garden space for the occupiers of the host property, and that it would be a quality building, using comparable materials to the host dwelling. However, these matters do not overcome the harm that would be caused to the character of the surrounding area, due to the scale and position of the outbuilding.

The use of the outbuilding, incidental to the enjoyment of the host dwelling, is not a matter of dispute and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The appellant’s statement sets out that the needs of the appellant should be balanced against the generic planning policies. However, I do not have any substantial evidence setting out that the existing dwelling is substandard or what the particular needs of the appellant are in relation to the proposed outbuilding. Also, it is not clear why a building of this scale and position is necessary to meet such needs. Therefore, these matters have little weight.

In respect of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the mere cost of the development would not represent a positive economic objective that supports the wider economy. The proposal would be for the needs of the appellant and any future occupiers of the host dwelling. It would not be of benefit to the wider community. Also, whilst the proposal would be on land within a garden and occupy the footprint of a previous building, I have found harm in relation to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would not meet the environmental objectives of sustainable development, as set out in the Framework.

For the above reasons, the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material planning considerations, including the Framework, to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the plan.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.