Appeal 6000898

The appeal is dismissed.

On visiting the site, the outbuilding had already been partly erected, and I am satisfied the plans represent that which has been built.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area, and the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with specific regard to outlook.

The host dwelling is a 2-storey detached house with a modest garden in a purpose-built residential estate. It is located on a corner plot next to the parking court for 46, 48 and [address]. The rear garden is enclosed by a brick wall and accessible through a wooden gate next to the front door. The proposal would constitute a brick-built outbuilding with pitched roof located in the corner of the rear garden adjacent to the boundary with [address]. It would replace an existing wooden shed with a mono-pitch roof.

Outbuildings in the area are not uncommon and are generally detached garage buildings built as part of the estate. They are largely similar in size to that proposed and the location of the outbuilding, next to a parking court, would not be out of character if viewed as a detached garage. However, as seen on site, the height of the floor of the proposed outbuilding would mean the windows and door in the southeast elevation (as shown on plan 10370/01 [name]) would be partially but obviously visible over the garden wall along with the proposed roof lights. These would be distinctly domestic features so would clearly separate the proposal from the surrounding garage buildings and draw attention to its incongruity. Therefore, the proposal would not constitute a form of development which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area.

It would be of a design and materials pallet that would relate well to the host dwelling, so would not have a harmful effect on its character and appearance. But as a lack of harm, by definition, it cannot overcome or outweigh the detrimental impact the proposal would have on the local area.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the local area. It would therefore fail to comply with the Gloucester, Cheltenham, and [name] (CS) Policy SD4, and the Gloucester City Plan (LP) Policies A1 and A9 insofar as they seek new development to respect the character of its surroundings and the appearance of the locality.

[address] is adjacent to the appeal site and shares a garden wall. It is part of a short terrace and has a conservatory to the rear with a small garden. The outlook from the rear garden is over the appeal site across the parking court beyond, as there is a 2-storey house at the bottom of the garden.

The proposal would have a significantly enclosing and overbearing impact on the outlook from No 42’s garden, due to proximity, overall eaves and ridge height, and its length being similar to the garden’s full length. The garden would be dominated by development with no views beyond its own bounds which would create an unpleasant and confined outdoor space. This would not be welcoming or conducive to positive outdoor use, such as relaxing or play.

Accordingly, the proposed outbuilding would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with specific regard to outlook. It would fail to comply with [name] SD4 and SD14, and [name] A1 and A9 as far as they seek to prevent unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants.

The appellant considers the existing timber garden building as not fit for purpose. However, this does not negate the identified harm above.

That an extant permission for an outbuilding (24/00491/FUL) is not considered viable by the appellant. This is due to its construction involving the shared garden walls, and a roof form that cannot be built using the same tile as the host dwelling. Although unfortunate, I am bound to consider the planning merits of the proposal before me and not whether the previous proposal is capable of being amended.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.