Appeal 6001685

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 description of development on the application form is extensive. Therefore, I have used the description from the decision notice because it accurately reflects the scheme that is before me. However, I have removed the wording in relation to it being retrospective as that is not an act of development.

The development has already been implemented. The planning application has been submitted retrospectively, and I am considering the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: i) the character and appearance of the area, ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property; and, iii) the living conditions of the occupiers of 17 [site address] (No 17), in terms of privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in a modern housing estate. The dwellings in the estate are close knit. They are mostly set within small plots. The rear gardens are generally small, as is the rear garden of the appeal property. Where there are outbuildings in the gardens, these are typically limited to small sheds. These are modest in scale and are not overtly visible above the boundary fences, thus having a discreet presence in the gardens. Overall, given the close-knit layout of the estate, the general absence of large structures in the rear gardens contributes positively to a relative sense of openness and space around the buildings.

Even though the cabin is single storey, as a result of its considerable scale and mass, it appears as a bulky and dominant feature in the rear garden of the appeal property. Despite its design and materials being typical for an outbuilding, given its height well above the boundary fences together with its close proximity to the boundaries, it has a conspicuous presence in the rear garden area. This is in contrast to the small sheds in the area, it also appears excessively large and incongruous in glimpsed views between the dwellings in the estate. Consequently, the cabin appears disproportionately large for the plot, and it erodes the sense of openness and space between the buildings.

The appellant refers to a detached garage at 13 [site address] , which is adjacent to the appeal site. However, I do not have the full details of the circumstances in which this was erected and whether this was done so with planning permission. As such, I cannot be sure that it represents a direct parallel with the appeal scheme. Moreover, from my own observations on my site visit, although the garage and the cabin are similar in height, the garage seems to be smaller in footprint and takes up much less of the garden. Therefore, it is unlikely to result in the same erosion of space compared to the cabin. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own individual merits.

I therefore conclude that the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It is contrary to Policy DE1 and H5 of the Coventry Local Plan (CLP) (2017), which amongst other matters, require that developments respect and enhance their surroundings.

The development is also contrary to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which amongst other matters, advises that outbuildings should be proportionate to the scale of the associated dwellinghouse and plot.

In addition to the cabin in the rear garden of the appeal property, it also has a lean-to structure which extends from the rear elevation of the dwelling in addition to a small shed in the garden. The remainder of the garden is open and paved.

Although the lean-to structure encloses part of the rear garden, it nevertheless provides open space underneath it. This could be used for outdoor purposes such as sitting out, children playing and drying clothes. The shed could also be used for the storage of outdoor items such as bicycles, children’s toys and tools. Therefore, although the outbuilding has reduced the amount of open space in the rear garden, it is not entirely devoid of space for typical outdoor activities.

Furthermore, the outbuilding is clearly intended to benefit the occupiers of the dwelling by providing additional space. Although this is indoor space rather than outdoor space, it could be used for hobby related activities which would typically take place in a garden. Therefore, I see little evidence to demonstrate how the cabin is harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development is not harmful to the living conditions of the existing occupiers of the appeal property. It complies with Policies DE1 and H5 of the CLP, which amongst other matters, requires that developments meet local housing needs. It would also be in accordance with the guidance in the SPD, which advises that developments should not adversely impact on amenity.

No 17 is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. Like the appeal property, it has a small rear garden. The boundary treatment between the rear gardens is formed of a wooden fence which is of a moderate height with trellis over.

The outbuilding at the appeal site is positioned immediately adjacent to the side boundary to the rear garden of No 17. It has a large window in this side elevation which faces towards the rear garden of this neighbour. It is therefore possible for users of the outbuilding to overlook the rear garden of No 17 from this window. Consequently, the development results in some loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 17, when using their rear garden.

However, I observed on my site visit that the extent of the overlooking and loss of privacy at No 17 is partly mitigated by the boundary treatment. Given the moderate height of the fence between the properties, it provides some screening along the boundary. It therefore reduces the ability for users of the outbuilding to overlook the rear garden of No 17, albeit not completely.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that consideration should be given as to whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. The appellant states that they would be willing to accept a condition which would ensure that the window is obscure glazed and non-opening. I see no reason why this condition would not overcome the harm of the development to the living conditions of occupiers of No 17, in terms of privacy. [name] had found that the development was otherwise acceptable, I would have explored such a condition with the main parties. However, as I have found it to be harmful on the first main issue, this has not been necessary.

I therefore conclude that subject to the imposition of a suitably worded condition, the development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 17, in terms of privacy. It would comply with Policies DE1 and H5 of the CLP, which amongst other matters, requires that developments meet local housing needs. It would also be in accordance with the guidance in the SPD, which advises that developments should not adversely impact on amenity.

The appellant argues that the cabin only marginally exceeds what could be constructed with deemed planning permission as permitted development for outbuildings1. However, the evidence before me indicates that permitted development rights for outbuildings have been removed from the appeal site by condition. Consequently, I am not aware of any realistic possibility that a marginally smaller cabin could be constructed as permitted development with deemed planning permission. Accordingly, in the absence of such a realistic fallback position, I therefore give this argument little weight in support of the appeal. Even if 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E – buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse. permitted development rights have not been removed, the structure will exceed the tolerances afforded under this legislation.

I am also conscious that the appellant has invested a significant sum of money in the cabin. I also understand that dismissing the appeal would have negative consequences for the appellant in terms of losing a space which benefits their health and wellbeing. Even so, personal circumstances such as this seldom outweigh general planning considerations.

The concerns regarding the way in which the Council worked with the appellant, including not being positive and proactive and not allowing time for communication, while frustrating for the appellant, are not reasons to allow the appeal.

Finally, the absence of the Council pursuing enforcement action to date and whether or not any enforcement action is pursued in the future, is a matter for the Council and the appellant and is not a determinative factor on the appeal.

The development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, 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.