Appeal 6001486

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outside wood/timber framed structure to be used as an office/garden room at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 2025/0392/HHA, the plans submitted with it and subject to the following condition:

Notwithstanding the submitted details, the window shown on the side elevation shall be fixed shut and fitted with obscure glazing, which shall be no less than [name] 4. The window shall not thereafter be altered in any way and retained as such for the lifetime of the development.

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 main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 75), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal dwelling shares a boundary fence with a detached property at No 75. The outbuilding, which was in situ at the time of my site visit, projects above the fence and is therefore visible from the rear garden and rear-facing windows and doors of No 75. Even so, due to its modest scale, set-back position from the shared boundary and siting away from the rear elevation and patio area of the neighbouring property, it does not result in an undue sense of enclosure for occupiers of No 75.

Moreover, the existing trellis and climbing plants, provide partial screening of the outbuilding’s rear elevation which, together with the flat roof design, reduces its perceived bulk. Therefore, and even accounting for the appeal site’s slightly elevated position in relation to No 75, the outbuilding does not appear overbearing and a suitably open aspect from the neighbouring property is maintained.

Consequently, the outbuilding has an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 75, with particular regard to outlook. It therefore complies with Policy P7 of the Mansfield District Local Plan (2020) which, amongst other things, requires that developments do not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing and new residents and future occupiers through overbearing impact.

A number of comments have been made by neighbouring occupiers. The concerns regarding overlooking can be addressed through the use of obscure glazing, which was in place when I visited the site, as well as the fixing shut of the outbuilding’s side window.

The outbuilding is of a scale, design and materiality typical of garden structures. While it might be taller than some other garden buildings in the immediate vicinity, it is still of a domestic scale and appearance that enables it to integrate appropriately within the residential setting. The rear garden of the appeal site is also sufficiently large to accommodate the outbuilding without appearing cramped or overdeveloped.

I note the reference to permitted development rights and the assertion that the outbuilding breaches those provisions. However, that simply means that planning permission is required, and which has duly been applied for. It does not follow that the development is automatically inappropriate.

Concerns relating to structural stability, impacts on vegetation, and effects on property values and marketability are not material planning considerations. These matters do not therefore alter my reasoning in respect of the main issue.

As the development is already complete, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, and no time limit condition is necessary.

In the interests of avoiding harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No 75, a condition is recommended in the Council’s report, requiring the use and retention of obscure glazing and the fixing shut of the outbuilding’s side window. This condition would remove the potential for overlooking. However, I have amended the wording both for clarity and to reflect the fact that planning permission is sought retrospectively.

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

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