Appeal 3338213

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an outbuilding at [site address] , Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/01407/HOU, dated 10 November 2023, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2320 101; 2320 113; 2320 211; 2320 213; 2320 311; 2320 312; and 2320 410.

No further development shall take place until details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be completed in accordance with the approved materials and detailing.

At the time of my site visit an outbuilding had been partially constructed at the site but had not been completed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling, located within a relatively deep plot. The appeal proposal is for an outbuilding in the rear garden of the dwelling.

The outbuilding under construction is irregular in shape and follows the general alignment of the rear boundary of the site. The submitted drawings show a building with a width of around 9.2m, a depth of between 3.83m and 6.75m and an overall height of 2.95m.

The outbuilding is sited adjacent to the rear boundary of the site, beyond which are the rear gardens of houses in [address]. The Council’s concern is in relation to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].

The dwelling at [address] is a two storey. There is a large outbuilding within its rear garden which tapers in width to the rear. The outbuilding stretches across the full width of the rear boundary of the dwelling. With a height of 2.95m, the outbuilding would be higher than a conventional fence, including those along adjoining boundaries which I was able to observe on my site visit. However, given the overall depth of the garden of No 14 together with the intervening outbuilding within its own rear garden, in my view, the outbuilding would not be of such a height or scale that would dominate the outlook from the rear of the dwelling.

Furthermore, having regard to the height of the building and its positioning along the rear boundary of the site, whilst it is clear that the building would be visible from the garden of No 14, as a matter of judgement, I do not consider that it is likely to be so overbearing on the garden of No 14 such that it would result in any significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that dwelling.

The outbuilding also extends across part of the rear garden boundary of No [address] as well as along the rear section of the side boundaries of Nos 14 and [address]. However, given the siting of the building towards the end of these gardens and intervening distances involved, I concur with the Council that the building is unlikely to result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of those dwellings.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to outlook. I find that it complies with Policy EN1 of the Spelthorne Development Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) which, amongst other matters, seeks to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjoining properties avoiding significant harmful impact in terms of overbearing effect.

I noted on my site visit that several other dwellings in the immediate area also benefit from outbuildings in their rear gardens, some of which are large in size and of considerable height. I therefore agree with the Council that the proposed outbuilding would not be out of character with the surrounding area in this regard. Whilst the building is unfinished and its block construction is unsightly, a condition could be imposed to secure details of the final materials and finish of the building should I be minded to allow the appeal.

Interested parties have raised several issues relating to the construction of the building, including encroachment beyond the boundaries of the site and damage to boundary fencing and trees. I have determined the appeal based on the drawings and other information before me which was submitted to and determined by the Council. Matters relating to land ownership or private property matters are beyond the remit of this appeal. Any subsequent issues in relation to discrepancies between the drawings and the building constructed on the site would be a matter for the Council to consider. Whether or not an application has been made under the Building Regulations is not of relevance to the determination of this appeal.

Interested parties have also questioned the potential use of the building as a studio. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that the intended incidental use of the building would result in noise and disturbance. Should any such issues arise in the future, this would be subject to other legislation.

I have had regard to the Council’s list of suggested conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed.

The standard time implementation condition is not necessary as the development has already commenced. I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to materials is necessary in order to ensure a satisfactory external appearance.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.