Appeal 6002180

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘garden room outbuilding and replacement garage with first floor annexe’ at [site address] , Braintree, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01538/HH, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage. The appellant’s appeal submission included a ‘proposed street elevation’ plan which was not part of the application. However, this does not alter the development proposed from that which was before the Council and interested parties at application stage; rather it provides an additional illustration of the development proposed. I am satisfied that it would not result in a substantial difference or fundamental change to the application and that my consideration of it would not cause procedural unfairness to any party. I have therefore taken the street elevation plan into account in determining the appeal.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; and (ii) the effect of the replacement garage with first floor annexe on the living conditions of the occupiers of 32 [name] with particular regard to privacy and disturbance.

Policy LPP 36 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 includes a requirement for outbuildings to be subordinate to the original dwelling in terms of bulk, height and position.

The appeal site includes a detached [name] style dwelling which is set well back from the street and at a higher land level to it within a very generous plot.

The replacement garage with annexe now proposed would be in a broadly similar location to an existing single-storey garage outbuilding which is set forward of the dwelling and close to the boundary with 32 [name]. It would be two-storey in height and of greater footprint than the existing garage resulting in a much larger structure, but it would still be considerably smaller than the appeal dwelling, and would occupy only a very small part of the large overall plot. Despite changing land levels across the site, its roof would also sit appreciably lower than that of the main dwelling. I acknowledge that its greater height relative to the existing garage may increase potential views of the development from the street, but I find that the bulk and height of the replacement garage with annexe would be clearly subordinate to the dwelling.

In part, it would sit forward of the front elevation of the dwelling. Even so, it would be on a contrasting orientation, facing towards the dwelling rather than the street. It would also be set very close to the boundary with No 32, and so would lack an impression of being set within its own space which might otherwise suggest a greater degree of independence from the host dwelling and afford it a sense of relative importance. Having regard to these relationships, I am satisfied that the position of the development would ensure a suitable degree of subordinance to the host dwelling.

The building would be of [name] style in keeping with the host dwelling, and it would include similar design features such as curved walls, a flat roof, balcony and Crittall-style windows. In itself, I agree with the Council that it would be a well-designed form of development with pleasing proportions and visual interest. Furthermore, the individual features would be of markedly smaller proportion than similar parts of the main dwelling such that they would be less striking overall. The inclusion of garage doors to much of the ground floor level would additionally provide a clear visual signal of the nature of the building as a dependent structure to the dwelling. In my assessment, the contemporary design would be appropriately sympathetic to the context and I find that even taken together with its scale and position, the development would not compete visually with the host dwelling or undermine the hierarchy of structures on the site.

A high boundary wall and vegetation currently provide significant screening of the site from the street. I have noted above the increase in height of the garage with annexe relative to the existing garage, and the proposed widening of the driveway could further increase available views. Nevertheless, I find having regard to all of the above that this part of the development would be suitably subservient and subordinate to the dwelling on the site and that its design would be compatible with the dwelling and character of the area.

Furthermore, the appeal site is located within the Braintree Town Centre Conservation Area (‘the CA’). The Council indicates that the dwelling is additionally identified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (‘NDHA’), and that it makes a positive contribution to the CA. I agree with this assessment, and consider its role within the CA and NDHA status to be important elements of the context of the site. Within this context, it seems to me that development which would detract from the primacy of the host dwelling and fail to appear as a subordinate outbuilding as the Council asserts would be the case here would also harm the significance of the CA and NDHA including through drawing attention and disrupting the relationship of the dwelling with its setting. The fact that the Council has not identified such harm lends further support to my view that the effect of the replacement garage with annexe on the character and appearance of the area would overall be acceptable.

Turning to the garden room outbuilding, the Council’s Historic Buildings Advisor raised some concerns that the indicated external cladding would introduce a noticeable contrast with an otherwise coherent design to the site. However, the building would already be distinguished by its scale and single-storey height and in my view, it would not be unexpected or inappropriate for a garden outbuilding to have a contrasting but complementary external finish. The visual impact of this part of the development would further be moderated given its modest height and that opportunities for views from outside of the site would be very limited. The Council does not otherwise raise concerns about the garden room outbuilding and based on my observations and the evidence before me, I am satisfied that it would be suitably sympathetic to the host dwelling and site.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling or area. I consequently find no conflict with [name] 36 or LPP 52 of the Local Plan insofar as they broadly seek a high standard of design and require that outbuildings are subordinate to dwellings and compatible with the dwelling and character of the area. Nor would the proposal be contrary to requirements within the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) seeking high quality design and development that is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.

For the avoidance of doubt and mindful of the requirement at section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, I am further satisfied that the contribution that the site makes to the character, appearance and significance of the CA would be preserved.

The first-floor annexe above the replacement garage would be accessed via an external stair onto a terrace. These would be relatively close to the boundary of the site with 32 [name]. However part of the building would sit between the main part of the terrace and the boundary, blocking direct views towards the frontage of No 32. Some oblique views out from the rear of the main part of the terrace could be possible, but the position of the neighbouring dwelling relative to the development means that I consider the angle of view would be unlikely to cause meaningful overlooking to the dwelling or its windows.

There would be potential for views towards No 32 from the stairs and landing section of the terrace, but the nature and limited scale of these areas mean that occupiers of the annexe would be unlikely to dwell in these spaces and so views would be fleeting rather than prolonged. Moreover, they would be towards the front of No 32 and while I acknowledge that landscaping provides a degree of seclusion to this neighbour, I observed that there are currently clear views from the street along the access up to the part of the dwelling and frontage closest to the boundary with the appeal site.

Taking these factors together, I find that the proposal would not result in significant overlooking or a meaningful loss of privacy to No 32.

Furthermore, the limited scale of the terrace and annexe as a whole means that levels of use and activity on the terrace and stairs would be likely to be limited and low-intensity. Noting too that the art studio would provide a physical barrier between No 32 and the main part of the terrace and the relative positions of the buildings, I consider that activity would be unlikely to be readily appreciable from the neighbouring dwelling, and the adjacent frontage accommodates parking and landscaping rather than usable amenity space where occupiers would be likely to be spending any significant time. Taking these factors together, I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to a level of disturbance that would be intrusive or detrimental to the living conditions of occupiers of No 32.

For these reasons, I conclude with particular regard to privacy and disturbance that the proposed replacement garage and annexe would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of 32 [name]. Accordingly, I find no conflict with [name] 36 or LPP 52 of the Local Plan insofar as they broadly require no unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties. Nor would the proposal be contrary to the Framework insofar as it includes a requirement for a high standard of amenity.

In addition to the standard time limit (1), I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans (2) for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty. I have also imposed conditions to require further details of external materials (3), architectural detailing (4) and hard and soft landscaping (5); and to ensure implementation of identified tree protection measures (6) which are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the CA.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would accord with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01, 02, 03, 04A, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, and 13.

No development above proposed ground level shall take place until details including an illustrated schedule of the types and colours of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above proposed ground level shall take place until details of windows, doors, facia and sills including elevations at scales of between 1:20 and 1:1 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and permanently maintained as such thereafter.

No development above proposed ground level shall take place until details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include: i. means of enclosure and retaining structures; ii. boundary treatments; iii. hard surfacing materials; iv. full specifications of new planting; and v. an implementation programme. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] dated 9 July 2025 by Tree Planning Solutions Ltd (ref TPSarbQU0371).