Appeal 6002504

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of Hambledon, with particular regard to outlook; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The existing outbuilding to be demolished has a gentle sloping mono-pitched roof and is located very close to the boundary shared with the neighbouring residential property at Hambledon.

The submission details how the replacement outbuilding would have the same sized footprint as the existing and would have a hipped roof design measuring 4m high to its ridge. The replacement building would therefore be higher than the existing, but it would also be positioned 2m away from the shared boundary.

I observed on site that the appeal site, and the existing outbuilding along the boundary, are situated at a significantly higher land level than the neighbouring dwelling, and garden area, at Hambledon. However, an existing mature hedgerow along the shared boundary, as well as some ornamental trees, currently screens the vast majority of this existing outbuilding from the ground floor rear windows, and rear garden area, of Hambledon, with only a very limited section at eaves level being visible above this hedge.

As mentioned, the replacement building would be sited approx. 2m further away from this shared boundary. The Council state that this would result in an 11.8m separation distance between the proposed outbuilding and the windows in the rear elevation of Hambledon, which serve a kitchen, bedroom and study at ground floor level.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed development would fall below the 13m separation distance recommended within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] (2021) (SPD) between blank walls and windows serving habitable rooms1. However, the appellant contends that the modest height of the proposed outbuilding, the existing boundary treatment and the distance provided together mean that the proposed relationship would be acceptable.

In this regard, whilst I acknowledge that the positioning of the existing outbuilding is currently below the recommended separation distance in the SPD, as mentioned above, it is largely screened from views at Hambledon by the existing boundary hedge. However, owing to the proposed increase in height of the replacement outbuilding, arising from the hipped roof design, a significantly greater proportion of the proposed outbuilding would be visible from the rear windows and garden area of this neighbouring property, in comparison to the existing outbuilding.

A greater proportion of the replacement building being visible from this neighbouring property does not in itself mean the relationship is unacceptable. Nevertheless, given the very noticeable change in land levels, as well as the separation distance that would be provided, I find that the additional height of the replacement outbuilding would have a significantly overbearing impact, and create a sense of enclosure, when viewed from the ground floor windows in the rear elevation of Hambledon, as well as from its rear garden area.

These harmful impacts are only exacerbated by the length of the proposed outbuilding, which would span across a significant proportion of the rear boundary of Hambledon. I find the proposal would therefore represent an overly prominent, oppressive and dominant feature when viewed from the rear of this neighbouring residential property.

In view of the above, I conclude that the proposal would result in significant adverse harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Hambledon, by way of overbearing impact and loss of outlook from the habitable windows in its rear elevation and its rear garden area. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy DM2 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name] (2019) (LP2), where it seeks to ensure that development does not have a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of existing properties, including impacts on outlook.

Furthermore, the proposal would not adhere to the guidance contained within the SPD where it supports development that does not give rise to significant adverse impacts on residential amenity. It would also be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users.

I note the Council’s reason for refusal in respect of the impact of the appeal proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers refers to conflict with Policy ENV6 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) [name] (2015) (LP1). This policy seeks to ensure high quality design 1 The SPD details how kitchens, bedrooms and studies are all habitable rooms. and sustainable construction and does not specifically relate to living conditions. I find this policy is therefore not determinative in relation to this main issue.

The appeal relates to a detached outbuilding within the substantial garden area of the residential dwelling at [site address] , a relatively large, detached property located within a rural hamlet. According to the submitted evidence the appeal site is located within the countryside and this hamlet is characterised by a tight cluster of predominantly detached dwellings fronting onto the highway of [site address] , within a wider rural landscape comprising of green fields, rolling hills, woodlands and hedgerows.

The submitted plans show that the proposed replacement outbuilding would contain 4no. garages, a study and a cinema room. The appellant’s submission details that the garages would be used to house classic cars and a boat. It also explains that the study would function as an office for home working and the cinema would be used by residents of the main dwelling.

[name] note the Council’s comments that the appellant already has an outbuilding containing two garages, as well as other concerns about the potential use of the building in the future, I observed on site that the existing outbuilding to be demolished was currently being used to house two cars. Furthermore, I saw a small boat and a couple of trailers were being stored externally within the garden area.

As such, based on the information before me, as well as my observations on site, there is no reason for me to doubt that the proposed outbuilding would be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse at [site address] . Furthermore, and as suggested by the appellant, should I be minded to allow the appeal a suitably worded planning condition to that effect could be imposed.

With regard to scale, according to the submitted details the proposed outbuilding’s footprint would be the same as the building it replaces, when the existing covered section to the side is included. [name] acknowledge its height would be increased to provide a hipped roof design, it would remain a single-storey building. Given my observations of the relatively large size of the existing main two-storey house, I find that the proposed outbuilding would be subordinate in scale to the original dwelling house, as well as the surrounding detached properties.

In coming to this view, I note the appeal property has another detached outbuilding located directly to the rear of the main dwelling which is also relatively large in size. However, this does not alter my conclusion that the scale of the proposed outbuilding before me would be subordinate to the main dwelling house.

In terms of design, the proposed single-storey outbuilding would have a timber clad external finished and a hipped slate roof, in keeping with the rural character of the area. Its northwest facing elevation would contain 4no. garage doors and 2no. sets of folding doors to serve the office and cinema rooms. These openings would face into the appeal property’s own garden area and therefore away from neighbouring properties. Overall, I find the design and external appearance of the proposed domestic outbuilding to be acceptable within the rear garden area of a dwelling in the countryside.

Turning to its effect on the wider countryside, the proposed replacement outbuilding would be sited in a rear garden area behind the existing built development fronting onto [site address] . Views of the proposal from this highway would be largely screened by neighbouring dwellings and existing vegetation. Views from the open fields to the northwest would also be restricted by the raising natural topography of the land and the hedgerows.

Consequently, views of the proposed development from public vantage points within this countryside location would be fairly limited, and any views afforded would be seen in context with the surrounding residential development. Furthermore, given its siting within an enclosed garden area, the proposal would not result in any encroachment of built development into the undeveloped wider open countryside.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the replacement outbuilding would be subordinate to the original dwelling house and its scale and design would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside. I therefore find no conflict with LP1 [name] 9 and ENV6, and LP2 Policies DM3 and DM21, where they together require, amongst other things, that developments are in keeping with the character of the area and are subordinate to the original dwelling and surrounding properties; respect the scale, character and appearance of any buildings within the site and contribute positively to the local character of the area; and are of an appropriate scale and design to not harm the character of the countryside.

The proposal would also adhere to the guidance within the SPD, where it states that outbuildings that are sufficiently subordinate to the main dwelling will be supported in order to ensure that they are in keeping with its character and appearance, and that of the wider area.

Within their Appeal Statement the appellant suggests that the proposed development could be erected under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, therefore representing a fallback position. However, within their [name] the appellant states that a full planning application has been submitted due to the proposal involving the demolition of an existing building.

As such, there appears to be some ambiguity as to whether the appellant considers the submitted appeal scheme can be erected under permitted development rights and this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Given this ambiguity, I cannot therefore be certain that the appeal scheme before me represents permitted development, and this limits the weight I can attribute this purported fallback position in favour of the appeal scheme.

The appellant also states that the existing outbuilding could be retained and another detached outbuilding could be erected under permitted development, and that this also represents a fallback position. It is therefore asserted that the appeal proposal would avoid cumulative harm in comparison to this fallback position.

Be that as it may, if the existing outbuilding was to be retained on site, any additional outbuilding erected under permitted development could not be sited in the same position as the appeal proposal, as the siting of the proposed outbuilding is reliant upon the existing outbuilding being demolished.

Consequently, it has not been demonstrated with any certainty that a potential additional outbuilding erected under permitted development rights would be comparable, in terms of its impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Hambledon, as the appeal proposal. Again, this therefore limits the weight I can attribute to this suggested fallback position in favour of the appeal proposal.

Moreover, if this appeal were to be allowed, the appellant would still have permitted development rights to erect other outbuildings in their garden. Thus, the suggested cumulative harms arising from additional outbuildings being erected in the garden area would not necessarily be avoided should the appeal be allowed.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) that has been granted for an alternative outbuilding at the appeal site. However, I have been provided with very limited details in respect of the size and siting of that outbuilding and can therefore draw no direct comparisons with the appeal scheme before me, including its impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Hambledon. In the absence of this information, I give this LDC for an alternative outbuilding very limited weight in my consideration of the appeal proposal.

In view of all the above, I acknowledge that a legitimate fallback position can carry significant weight in favour of a proposal. However, in this particular case I do not have any certainty that the suggested fallback schemes are either implementable, or comparable with the submitted appeal scheme. I can therefore make no meaningful assessment as to whether they would have the same harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Hambledon as the appeal proposal. Accordingly, I afford these purported fallback positions limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

I have found that the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area. However, I have concluded that the appeal proposal would result in significant adverse harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Hambledon, by way of overbearing impact and loss of outlook when viewed from the habitable windows in its rear elevation and its rear garden area. The proposal therefore conflicts with LP2 Policy DM2, the SPD and the provisions of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. I find the harm arising from this conflict to be significant.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the demolition, construction and furnishment of the development. These however would be short term benefits and given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

The appellant states that the proposal would include an office that would enable them to work from home, therefore reducing the need to travel to work, as well as providing facilities that improve the existing living accommodation. The appellant claims that these are environmental and social benefits. However, there is limited evidence before me that the appeal proposal is the only way to achieve these benefits.

It is also stated that the proposal would utilise sustainable design principles, although limited detailed information of this has been provided. I also acknowledge the proposal provides an opportunity to improve rainwater drainage at the site. Overall, I give the social and environmental benefits limited weight in favour of the development.

It is claimed that the proposal would not result in the loss of any trees or habitats. However, a lack of harm in respect of these matters weighs neither for, nor against, the

For the reasons set out above, I have given limited weight to the appellant’s purported fallback positions.

In view of all the above, whilst I have found that there would be some limited benefits arising from the proposal, I conclude that these benefits do not outweigh the significant harm I have identified in respect of the proposal’s harmful impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at Hambledon.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.