Appeal 6001769

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.

Since the appeal proposal should not be used to evolve a scheme, I have considered the plans on which the Council based their decision in the interests of fairness to all parties. The main issues for the appeal are the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of the occupiers of both Number [site address] (No.

and those of the appeal building itself. This is in regard to garden space, privacy and outlook.

The appeal building is a two-storey flat roofed outbuilding situated to the rear of No.

Both the building and the main dwelling have a close relationship with there being only a small yard separating them. Access to the rear is currently provided through an under croft. No. 2 is a terraced dwelling, and the appeal building is therefore bordered by the gardens of other properties to each side with an industrial estate to the rear. The area of land immediately to the rear of the building appears to be used as a parking area in connection with the industrial uses.

The proposal would change the use of the outbuilding to a two bedroomed dwelling. The existing rear yard would be split into two with a 1.8 metre high timber fence to create two separate outdoor spaces. The new dwelling would be accessed through the under croft and users would cross the outdoor space that would be associated with No.2 to get to the property.

Each of the outdoor spaces that would be created would be small and the arrangement would be quite contrived. Users of each of the garden areas would feel a strong sense of enclosure due to the tall boundary treatments around the small spaces. The patio area for No.2 would be particularly small and would be further reduced by part of the area being available for access for the new property. This would also have a harmful effect upon the privacy of the occupiers of No.2 by occupants and visitors to the new dwelling having to walk through their outdoor space to enter their site.

All of the first-floor windows of the new dwelling that face towards No. 2 would be obscure glazed. Nevertheless, given how close both of the dwellings would be to one another, their direct back to face relationship and the small size of the gardens, even with obscure glazing, there would be a sense of overlooking created for users of the garden of No.2 and a perceived loss of privacy. The same can be said for users of the new garden from the first-floor rear windows of No.2.

The new dwelling would have two ground floor windows that would face into the outdoor space towards the boundary fencing and three windows on the first floor that would face towards the industrial estate. [name] agree that the views would not necessarily be scenic for the occupiers of the new dwelling, I remain to be convinced that the outlook would be harmful, particularly within an area close to the town centre where a mix of uses abutting each other is common.

Nonetheless, given the harm that I have found with regard to garden space and privacy, there would be harm to the living conditions of both the occupants of No.2 and the future occupants of the new dwelling. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 10 of the [name] 2014 and Policies H10 and H12 of the Erewash Borough Saved Policies Document 2008. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure development is compatible with the residential environment and does not cause harm to the living conditions of existing or future occupiers.

At the time of my site visit, the south kitchen window was bricked over and there was not a garden wall or fence within the site. Whilst there may be examples of smaller gardens in the area, they are the exception rather than the norm. In addition, my concerns relate to both the size and resulting quality of the outdoor spaces and how they would feature together. This is as a result of a site and development specific assessment of the appeal scheme.

If the outbuilding were to be used for incidental purposes, then there would be an expectation that it would be used as part of the same household as No. 2. The existing windows of the building are not obscure glazed, and I agree that the buildings have a close relationship. However, the proposal would not amount to an improvement given that the way in which the buildings are occupied would be entirely separate and therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

By using the building as a dwelling, there would be a small degree of perceived loss of privacy for the occupants of Number 4 [name] (No.4) from the first-floor obscure glazed windows. However, given the location of the building within a residential area, its staggered relationship with abutting gardens and the existing incidental uses that could take place, this would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. 4 which is the same conclusion that the Council came to on this matter.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore 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.