Appeal 3351346

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (a) whether the development would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Worton Conservation Area (WCA); (b) the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with reference to privacy.

The property subject of the appeal is a garage/storage outbuilding set in the rear garden of the host property. It is a reasonably sized building capable of accommodating two cars with room to spare on the ground floor. It also has an internal set of open stairs leading to a loft beneath a ridged roof, used for storage. As the appellant acknowledges, it is in a fairly poor condition, and I saw signs of structural stress. The description of the proposal includes the term ‘partial rebuilding’ but no firm indication has been provided as to the extent of rebuilding necessary or proposed. The outbuilding stands close to a recently constructed annexe.

Alongside the appeal property is a public right of way (PROW) which runs along a track. A hedge separates the PROW from the garage. The hedge effectively screens development in the appeal property’s rear garden from general view. The proposed extension would be built towards the hedge, but the plans are insufficiently detailed to show whether or not the hedge would be affected. The indications in the appellant’s appeal statement are that it would probably would, and that it could be replaced. Indeed, the appellant appears pessimistic about the longevity of the hedge generally, and claims that it could be removed without permission.

I saw that outbuildings were a common feature in this part of the WCA, and in principle I see no objection to the type of development the appellant has in mind, including a slightly higher ridge. A suitably designed refurbished building slightly extended would not prove uncharacteristic of the area.

However, as the Council has commented, the drawings submitted appear to be hand-drawn rudimentary sketches showing general form but little or no detail. Having regard to the site’s inclusion within the [name] consider them sub-standard since they do not effectively or sufficiently portray the design or the future appearance of the refurbished/extended building. As mentioned earlier, no firm indication is given as to the extent of rebuilding or the future of the hedge, and what means of enclosure should replace it if it is became damaged or removed. This is a significant matter given that the rear of the nearby properties would be open to view from the PROW without the hedge. In these circumstances, I cannot properly judge the impact on the WCA in terms of the effect on its appearance.

Accordingly, I find a material conflict arises with the thrust of those provisions of Core Policy 57 & 58 of the [name] (CS) directed to achieving high quality design in all development and ensuring the conservation of the historic environment, with particular reference to Conservation Areas.

The appellant proposes an external staircase at the eastern end of the building. This would be sited very close to the boundary with the next-door dwelling, and an unrestricted view would be obtained from the top of the staircase directly into next-door’s garden (No 122) at very close quarters. This, to my mind, would represent a harmful invasion of privacy, both actual and perceived, to the detriment of the living conditions currently enjoyed by the residents of [address].

I saw the existing external staircase at No 120, but this does not justify an additional exposure to overlooking, particularly in circumstances where the situation could be avoided by an improved and more considerate design.

I therefore conclude that the use of the staircase would materially and harmfully affect neighbouring living conditions. Accordingly, I find a material conflict with those provisions of CS policy 57 directed to achieving appropriate levels of amenity in new development.

I have seen the references to other development plan policies, but those to which I have referred are considered the most relevant. The references to the National Planning Policy Framework have also been considered.

No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my overall conclusions, set out below.