Appeal 3369591

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appellant has submitted amended plans as part of the appeal which include a reduction in size of the appeal scheme and an amended floor plan. The Planning Appeals Procedural Guide is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and what is considered by the Inspector at appeal should essentially be the same scheme as was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage.

No publicity has taken place with respect to these plans, and the Householder Appeal Service does not afford the local planning authority or third parties a chance to comment on the changes. To accept these plans would potentially cause injustice to other parties. Therefore, I have not taken these amended plans into consideration but have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans originally submitted to the Council.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character of the area.

The appeal scheme proposes the erection of a detached garden lodge to the rear of [site address] , a two storey detached dwelling situated on a residential street of other similar dwellings with long gardens to the rear. The rear gardens of the properties feature various detached outbuildings. A recently approved scheme for 4 bungalows1 has been constructed to the rear of the appeal site which is clearly distinct from the existing rear gardens and the existing outbuildings.

The appellant has made numerous references to case law2.The distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse is its ability to afford to those who used it, the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. However, even if the accommodation provides facilities for independent day-to-day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling, this a matter of fact and degree.

The lodge is capable of independent occupation through the provision of cooking, bathroom, sleeping and living facilities. Moreover, independent access and parking would be provided via the rear lane. Whilst the appellant asserts that the lodge would not be used as a self-contained residential unit, I have no evidence before me to indicate a functional relationship between the lodge and the host dwelling.

The parties agree that the scale and materiality of the proposal would be in keeping with the other detached outbuildings visible in the area and as such are satisfied with the design of the lodge in isolation. Nevertheless, the introduction of a separate, identifiable dwelling, would encroach on the rear garden environment. Notwithstanding the bungalows to the rear, the proposal would appear incongruous when viewed amongst the nearby functionally subordinate structures.

As a result of the above I consider that the lodge would harm the character of the area. The development would be contrary to Policies PG3 and TP27 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and Policy DM2 of the Development Management in [name] (2021) which seek amongst other things to protect and enhance the environment and to not allow proposals which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment.

The proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, however this would be expected of any well-design scheme and as such forms a neutral consideration. The appellant has referred to other appeal decisions for detached outbuildings in residential gardens. However, I do not consider these to be sufficiently similar to the case that is before me due to their layouts and the facilities they provide. Ultimately, I have considered the proposal on its own merits and against the planning policies and guidance in force. 1 Application Reference: 2023/07230/PA 2 Wallington v Secretary of State for Wales [1990], [name] v SSE & O’Brien [1983] JPL 306, Jennings v. SSETR [1997]

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.