Appeal 6003259

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an incidental outbuilding and veranda at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/377.

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 proposed development has already been implemented. I have omitted the word ‘retrospective’ in the description in the decision, because it is not an act of development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers at No [address] with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises of a detached two storey dwelling situated within a modern residential estate. Permitted development (PD) rights1 for the erection of outbuildings were removed as a condition attached to the planning permission for the site’s redevelopment2.

The outbuilding and veranda are situated within the rear garden of the appeal site. The outbuilding abuts the rear garden boundary, with the veranda positioned to its side, both structures adjoin the shared side boundary with No 22. Cumulatively, the 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 2 Planning permission 2019/1699 (Condition 23) Appeal Planning Officer 6003259 structures extend to approximately half the depth of the neighbouring garden at No

Whilst the depth of the structures results in some degree of enclosure to the rear garden, it does not create a tunnelling effect as there are open aspects retained in other directions. The garden is also of a sufficient depth and length to avoid an oppressive sense of outlook or enclosure.

Whilst the upper section of the outbuilding is visible above the boundary fence, seen obliquely from the rear of No 22 and from within its rear garden, the structure with its monopitch roof sloping away from the shared boundary, is not of a scale or form that creates a harmful sense of enclosure. While the veranda is comparatively tall, its open, non-solid construction and shallow roof provide some mitigating relief in terms of perceived enclosure. Although there is little separation between the structures and boundaries of the appeal site, they are experienced among the setting of other structures in the surrounding gardens, including that in the immediate neighbouring garden. I am satisfied that the development has not resulted in a significant overbearing impact on the occupiers of No 22, nor caused them to suffer from a significant sense of enclosure.

In conclusion, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 22. The proposal accords with Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan - Part 2 [name] (2014) which requires high quality design and seeks to prevent significant harm to neighbouring amenity, including through overbearing impacts. It also accords with Policy CSP 18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) which aims to ensure that development does not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring residents including through visual intrusion. For the same reasons, the proposal does not conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks a high standard of amenity for all.

A neighbour has raised concern regarding what they consider to be a lack of engagement by the appellants prior to erecting the structures and prior to submitting the retrospective planning application. Concern has also been raised regarding the ongoing maintenance of the boundary fence, given the position of the outbuilding and concern that the installation of drainage pipes has disturbed the boundary fence and rainwater discharging into neighbouring property. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development has caused, or would give rise to, an increased risk of flooding. These such matters relate to private interactions between the parties and do not amount to reasons to alter the above judgement.

The Council contends that there is no fallback position under PD as the structure exceeds the relevant height limitations. Nonetheless, I consider the works to comply with the development plan as set out. A third party suggests that, as the outbuilding does not comply with PD, it would be unreasonable to grant planning permission. However, the fact that a proposal falls outside the tolerances of PD does not preclude an applicant from seeking planning permission for it.

The Parish Council contends that the proposal encroaches into a ‘Green Buffer’ which they state was intentionally established to soften the visual impact of the new estate on the adjoining green space and school playing fields. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the appeal site lies within or Appeal Planning Officer 6003259 intrudes upon any such defined ‘Green Buffer’. Accordingly, this does not materially alter my findings on the appeal.

Third parties have expressed concern about the effect of the proposal on the wider character and appearance of the area. However, the Council has raised no concerns in this regard, and I find no reason to disagree. The scale, form, height and overall appearance of the structures are modest and do not result in any material harm to the character and appearance of the area. [name] acknowledge that an alternative cladding material has been installed to the rear of the outbuilding, I do not consider this to result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and it adequately blends with the close-boarded fencing within the garden.

The main parties did not suggest any conditions in the event that planning permission was granted. Given the development has been carried out I do not consider any conditions to be necessary.

The Council’s Officer report suggests that if the application were to be approved a condition could be imposed requiring the cladding of the side flank elevation, facing the school field, to ensure the outbuilding would not have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the wider area. There is established vegetation beyond the rear garden boundary of the appeal site, within the school grounds, and close-boarded fencing which provides adequate screening of the side flank elevation. A condition requiring this elevation to be clad is therefore not considered to be necessary or reasonable.

For the reasons given, the proposal would accord with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.