Appeal 3372108

The appeal property is located in a predominantly residential area, containing a range of dwelling types and designs. These include houses and bungalows. There are a mix of materials in the locality, but brick predominates. The site for the proposed garden studio lies to the front of a semi-detached dwelling, which is made from red brick with a hipped roof. The dwelling is accessed via [address] and is set back from the highway. The proposed garden studio would be located near the access point to the site. It would be clearly visible from various viewpoints along [address].

There are outbuildings in the grounds of nearby residential properties, indicating that such structures would not be unusual for the area. The Council does not raise any objection in principle to the scale and location of the proposed outbuilding. Concerns relate to the form and materials proposed.

The proposed building would be contemporary in appearance, with cedar and redwood cladding, grey fenestration and fascias, glazed double doors and a flat roof. At the time of my site visit, the host dwelling had white uPVC glazing. However, I observed grey uPVC windows on other properties in the locality, and consequently the proposed fenestration and fascias would not be out of character with the local area.

I also observed various roof forms, including flat roofs in the area. Neighbouring properties also included wooden materials. Given the mixed character of the area and the variety of materials, styles and colours present, I do not consider that the form and materials of the proposed building would stand out as being discordant or out of keeping.

The Council has raised concerns regarding the amount of glazing on the front elevation of the proposed building. I accept that many of the existing outbuildings in the local area have featureless elevations or elevations with modest openings. Whilst the proposed design is different, I am not persuaded that its inclusion of fully glazed doors would be so incongruous as to be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Paragraph 1.12.10 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential [name] 2: Guidance for Householders states that outbuildings must reflect on the character of the main house in terms of size, materials and proportions. [name] acknowledge that the proposed materials would contrast with the dwelling itself, they would not jar in the street scene, due to the variety of building materials in the locality.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed garden studio would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. I find no conflict with policies SP23 and LP56 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 and consider that the proposal protects, enhances and respects the character, function and overall quality of the locality in terms of design, scale, massing, height, density, layout, materials and colour.

The Council’s Decision Notice refers to Local Plan Policy LP57, which relates to extensions and alterations. Since this proposal relates to an outbuilding, this policy is not determinative in this case.

A condition addressing the time period for commencement of development has been imposed for legislative requirements. For certainty, I have included a condition to specify the approved drawings. A condition regarding materials is not necessary, as these are detailed in the approved drawings.

The Council considers a condition is required to restrict the use of the building to purposes incidental to the use of the main dwelling. Such a condition would fail the test of necessity, as alternative uses that are not incidental or ancillary to the dwelling would require planning permission for change of use.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.