Appeal 6001553

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of the existing garage and construction of a replacement outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref 07/25/0621/HF, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos GN01, GN02 and GN03.

The external materials of the outbuilding hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Broxbourne Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The second reason for refusal relates to the proposal not complying with the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO). However, it is clear from the evidence, including the application form, that the submission was for a householder application for planning permission and I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • living conditions of future occupiers, with specific regard to the provision of rear external amenity space.

[address] contains predominantly terraced properties set in long and narrow plots. Many of the plots contain garage and outbuilding structures of varying sizes situated to the rear within the private amenity space of these dwellings. The appeal site presently contains an existing garage set to the rear of the plot which would appear in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, along with the pattern of development.

The proposed garage would be of a similar length as the existing, however, it would cover the entire width of the plot, resulting in the loss of some garden space set to the side of the existing garage. Nevertheless, due to the varied size, style and appearance of the outbuildings set to the rear of [address], the appeal proposal would continue to contribute towards, and be in keeping with the varied appearance and pattern of development. Whilst the proposed garage would be larger than the existing, it would not be of such a size where it would appear harmfully prominent within the area.

As such, the development would therefore be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and as such, comply with Policy DSC1 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (2020) (LP). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure proposals achieve a high standard of design which takes into account existing patterns of development and urban form.

As mentioned, part of the rear garden space would be lost as a result of the proposal. The Council contends that it would fall below the Council’s standards for rear garden space1.

However, the space within the garden is already affected by the existing garage. The area lost to the proposal would primarily be to the side of the existing garage and an area which currently is used as a path to access the rear gate, rather than serve as primary usable space. It is therefore an area of fairly limited external amenity value for future occupiers. The area lost to the front of the garage would also be very limited as the proposed outbuilding is only marginally longer than the existing garage.

As such, the loss of this space to accommodate the appeal proposal would not result in any harm to the living conditions of future occupiers through loss of rear external amenity space. The appeal proposal would comply with Policy DSC1 of the LP. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that proposals achieve a high standard of design.

Whilst the Council has referred to Policy EQ1 of the LP in its associated reason for refusal, this policy relates to the living conditions of neighbouring properties and 1 Clarified in evidence as the [name] and [name] (2025) – 70m2 for 3 bed properties and 80m2 for 4 bed properties. waste management. As such, this policy would not be directly relevant to this main issue.

The parties do not agree whether the proposal would comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO. Whilst this appeal relates to a refusal of planning permission, nevertheless compliance with the GPDO is a material consideration in the context of a fallback position.

I have had due regard to the case law2 and evidence presented by the parties on this matter. However, as I have found that the proposal would comply with the development plan, whether the proposal would or would not comply with the GPDO and the weight to attribute to such a position is not determinative in my decision. It is therefore not necessary to consider this matter any further.

I have considered the suggested conditions against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

The standard timescale condition for implementation and a plans compliance condition are imposed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring materials to match the proposed dwelling. This is necessary to ensure the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.