Appeal 3344060

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/0043/24 for single storey garden room in rear garden at [site address] , Broadwater, [site address] , Worthing [postcode] granted on 20 March 2024 by Worthing Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition 3.

The main issue is whether the imposition of condition 3 is reasonable, necessary and otherwise accords with paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) when regard is paid to residential amenity and policy DM5 of the Worthing Local Plan (Local Plan).

The Officer’s Report addresses the claimed need for the condition, including by reference to concerns about overlooking, light, noise and use. The report notes the position of the approved building and the physical relationship with neighbouring boundaries, which I have also noted.

In respect of overlooking, paying regard to the heights of the boundary fences, ground levels, the locations of the windows in the approved building, and the withdrawal of permitted development rights under condition 4, there would be no material effect on living conditions from views into neighbouring gardens. This is the case regardless of whether the building is only used for incidental purposes, or not.

The north elevation glazed doors will create new views towards the windows of neighbouring properties, with some consequent impact on sense of privacy. Paying regard to the slope of the garden, the relative distances, and the prevailing privacy conditions in an area where a degree of mutual overlooking exists, any loss in sense of privacy would not be unreasonably harmful. Again, this is the case regardless of whether the building is only used for incidental purposes. Condition 3 is not reasonable or necessary to manage overlooking concerns.

Turning to general use, including light and noise. Allowing the building to be used for residential purposes other than incidental opens it up to a greater potential range of residential activity and general intensification of use. It is reasonable to expect that the scale and nature of such activity would be compatible with the residential use of the main house and the wider residential nature of the surroundings.

In these circumstances, and in the absence of substantiated evidence of specific risks, limiting the use to only incidental activities is not demonstrated to be either necessary or reasonable. Instead, the Council’s residential amenity concerns are generic and lack substance. The condition also does not secure accordance with Policy DM5 of the Local Plan, in particular DM5 viii) in terms of not having an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of adjacent properties.

In conclusion on the main issue, condition 3 is neither reasonable nor necessary and does not, therefore, accord with paragraph 56 of the Framework when regard is paid to residential amenity and policy DM5 of the Local Plan.

I have paid regard to neighbour representations. Concerns relating to residential amenity have been considered as part of my assessment of the main issue. Business use triggering a change of use of the building would be subject to its own planning assessment, if proposed. Restrictive covenants are a separate private land matter.

Condition 3 is removed from planning permission [name]/0043/24. All other conditions remain.

The appeal is allowed.