Appeal 6002012

The appeal is dismissed.

I acknowledge that the plans on which the Council determined the planning application were submitted in error. Nonetheless, the ‘Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England’ is clear that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. Accordingly, in the interests of fairness, I have not had regard to the ‘amended plans’ that have been submitted with the appeal and have determined it based on those that were before the Council when it made its decision.

On my visit, I observed that an outbuilding had been constructed in the same location as shown on the submitted plans but that the position and number of openings within the building on site were materially different. I am required to consider the scheme as it appears on the submitted appeal plans, and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with regard to outlook.

The appeal site lies within a residential area comprising two storey semi-detached and detached properties of a consistent design, interspersed with single storey dwellings. The properties are behind gardens and parking areas which provide a spacious and open character to the street scene. Other than at several road junctions where the pairs of semi-detached properties are angled towards the corners, the layout of the streets takes a linear form. The appeal property is part of such an angled pair.

The proposal would be sited in front of the host property. It would cover a large part of the front garden and, thus, would appear cramped and out of scale with it. Furthermore, the flat roof and rendered white exterior of the proposed outbuilding would not reflect the host property in terms of design and materials. It would, for such reasons, be an incongruous addition that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property.

The front garden within which the proposal would be situated is largely enclosed by a tall hedge, which would ensure that the outbuilding would not be prominent in views from the adjoining highway. It would, nevertheless, be glimpsed from the access to the property and, therefore, would intrude into close range views from [address] and would harmfully affect the spacious character of the area, albeit to a limited degree. Moreover, such vegetation is not permanent and whilst a condition could be imposed to secure landscaping, this would not ensure that it is retained beyond the standard maintenance period which is normally 5 years. Accordingly, it could not be relied upon to screen harmful development from view.

On my site visit, I observed no nearby examples of other outbuildings sited between the host dwelling and the adjoining highway. As such, outbuildings in similar positions to the proposal do not form a key component of the streetscape so as to assist in its assimilation into its surroundings. The proposed outbuilding would, therefore, be out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area. Whilst the external materials and detailing could be varied, that is not the proposal that is before me and, even if it were, such design alterations would not adequately mitigate the adverse visual impact arising from the scale and siting of the proposal.

The proposed development would not impact on the historic environment or other sensitive receptors such as designated landscapes. However, this is a neutral factor that does not outweigh the harm that I have found.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. As such, it would conflict with Policy CS 28 of the [name] (CS), adopted September 2014, and Policy SP 55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (LP), adopted June 2018. Such policies require development to be responsive to its context, be visually attractive and of a high quality. It would also be contrary to the design aims set out in the [name] (HDG), October 2025 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The proposed outbuilding would be sited close to, and would extend along most of, the shared side boundary with [address] (No 158). There is mature vegetation along that boundary that is taller than the height of the proposal, however, as set out above, it is not permanent and could not be relied upon to screen and soften the impact of proposal in views from that property for the lifetime of the development. Taking that into consideration, and given the position and height of the proposal, which is taller than typical solid boundary treatments, the proposal would have a substantial enclosing and dominating effect on the outlook from the ground floor windows of No 158. Consequently, it would create an unacceptable visual intrusion.

Based on the evidence before me, I find that the proposal would not result in overshadowing or loss of light to the occupiers of No 158. Nonetheless, it remains that it would be harmful in respect of outlook.

In conclusion, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of No 158 as it would adversely affect their outlook. It would conflict with LP Policy SP 55 which, amongst other things, requires development to be designed in a way to ensure that amenity is not adversely affected. It would also conflict with the similar aims of the HDG and the Framework.

CS Policy CS 28 was also referenced in the reason for refusal. However, as it does not relate to living conditions it is not relevant to this main issue.

Reference has been made to a possible fall-back position, namely the potential construction under permitted development (PD) rights of an outbuilding in an amended form to that before me. The consideration of a fall-back position, including what could be erected under PD rights, is a well-established principle. However, for it to weigh heavily in favour of a proposal there should be a real prospect of a closely comparable form of development occurring.

Buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse are permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) subject to limitations which include that they should not be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

There is disagreement between the main parties as to which is the principal elevation. If it were the one that faces towards [address], then an outbuilding could be erected in a similar position to the proposal. However, to ensure it is not situated forward of that elevation, it would have a smaller footprint. It would therefore be marginally less visible in views from the public realm.

If, however, the elevation facing towards the junction was the principal elevation, an outbuilding could be constructed without planning permission between the host property and [address]. In such a position, the building would be more visible from the public realm but to avoid obstruction of the vehicular access to the site, whilst also ensuring that it is not situated forward of the principal elevation, it would be considerably smaller than the proposal. It would, therefore, be more proportionate to the scale of the host property.

For the above reasons, the fall-back position would be less harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and to the area, whichever is the principal elevation. Consequently, a directly comparable development to the appeal proposal could not be brought forward under PD rights should planning permission be refused. As a result, I attribute the fall-back limited weight.

The appellant states that the proposal is required for essential family use, including the storage of mobility aids, rehabilitation exercises, and long-term medical care for disabled household members. In doing so the appellant asserts that pressure on the National Health Service would be reduced and multi-generational living would be supported.

These benefits accord with the aims of the Framework to support health and social wellbeing. However, it has not been demonstrated that the design of the outbuilding represents the only solution to meet the family’s needs. As such, I cannot be certain that the identified benefits could not be achieved through a development that is less harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. This reduces the weight that I can give to them in favour of the grant of planning permission

I have found that the proposal is harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and area and to the living conditions of the occupants of No 158 to which I attach substantial weight. The existence of a fall-back position and the benefits to the family that have been identified above carry only limited weight. Accordingly, they do not outweigh such harm.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, but the harm to the character and appearance of the area outweighs the benefits of the proposed outbuilding in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age and disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. I therefore find that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

I note the concerns expressed about the Council’s handling of the planning application. However, such matters are not relevant to my findings on the planning merits of the scheme and, therefore, fall outside of the remit of this decision.

I acknowledge that the proposal would not result in harm to highway safety. Nevertheless, this is a neutral factor that does not weigh in favour of, or against, the proposal.

The appellant has asked that a lawful development certificate be issued. However, there is no power to do so in respect of an appeal under section 78.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.