Appeal 6003408

The appeal is dismissed and approval of the reserved matters is refused, namely: layout, scale, appearance and landscaping details submitted in pursuance of condition No 2 attached to planning permission [name]/24/1235/OUT, granted on 8 August 2024.

The application form refers to access as a reserved matter to be determined. However, this is incorrect as access was considered as part of the outline application and specifically referred to in condition No 3 attached to the outline approval.

The main issues are: • whether the reserved matters proposals are consistent with the outline approval, with regard to the new access for plot 2; • the effect of the proposed garage on plot 2 on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the street scene; and • the effect of the first floor facing windows in the proposed dwellings on the living conditions of future occupiers, with regard to privacy; and the effect of the first floor window in the east elevation of the proposed garage on plot 2 on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regard to privacy.

No 45 is a detached two storey dwelling located on a private road in a rural setting, with detached dwellings of individual design and appearance on the same side of the road. The appeal site includes a number of outbuildings.

[name] 3 attached to the outline permission requires development to be carried out in accordance with the plans submitted at that stage. This includes the block plan with respect to the access shown on that plan1.

The Council’s concern arises from alleged inconsistencies between the access for plot 2 shown on the approved block plan and on the submitted reserved matters plans, which are likely to have arisen from the different methods to produce the plans. The appellant contends that these concerns arise principally due to the different position of the boundary between plots shown on the approved and proposed plans.

From my own observations, I accept the Council’s contention that there are apparent inconsistencies between the plans, particularly with regard to the width and depth of the appeal site; and that this has implications for assessing whether the proposed layout is acceptable in relation to movement, connectivity and site function, including the relationship of the new access with the existing access to serve plot 1.

Whether a new access could be constructed in any location as permitted development, as the appellant contends, does not have a direct bearing here. The fact is that the access to serve the proposed development has been approved as part of the outline permission and the reserved matters must be consistent with the approved details.

Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the reserved matters proposals are not consistent with the outline approval, with regard to the new access for plot 2. Consequently, this results in uncertainty and the potential for non-compliance with a condition attached to the outline planning permission.

The proposal includes a one and half storey detached garage on plot 2 that would be positioned behind the host dwelling, roughly parallel with the large timber shed on plot 1. This type of detached garage is commonplace along this part of [address] and, therefore, the proposed garage would not be uncharacteristic.

The garage would be positioned on the highest point of the site, although it would be seen in the wider context of a street scene where the land rises to the east of the site. Consequently, the neighbouring property, No 44, would remain a more prominent built form than the proposed dwelling and garage on plot 2.

The garage would be positioned some distance from the road frontage with trees and other planting in front of it. While it would be a relatively large building, its 1 [name].R/118/24A. 2 position and the screening would prevent it from being unduly prominent. The similar garage at No 46 is in a more prominent location in this regard.

While the garage would be well-separated from the host dwelling, there is no basis to find that this would appear unduly awkward or incongruous, or that it could not fulfil its intended purpose as a functional garage. Moreover, there are a number of other outbuildings in similar positions on the large plots along this part of [address].

Accordingly, taking these findings as a whole, I conclude that the proposed garage on plot 2 would not have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the street scene. Therefore, it is not contrary to Policies SCLP5.4, SCLP11.1 and SCLP11.9 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020), which seek to ensure that development respects local character, responds to site context and results in high quality design.

The Council’s concerns relate to mutual overlooking between the first floor facing bedroom windows in the two dwellings; and the potential for overlooking No 44’s garden from the open window in the east elevation of the garage on plot 2.

Conditions are suggested to address both concerns, which would require obscured glass in the relevant windows and measures to limit the extent of their opening. With these conditions in place there would be no harmful loss of privacy to current or future occupiers and, therefore, no conflict with Policy SCLP11.2 of the Local Plan, which requires development to not harm residential amenity, including with regard to privacy and overlooking.

I have had regard to the representation made by an interested party. This does not, however, raise any additional matters in relation to the main issues that would lead me to reach a different overall conclusion.

Matters relating to pre-application advice are not directly relevant to this appeal, which is concerned with the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons given with regard to the first main issue, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.