Appeal 6003611

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to side of existing outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/01952/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; and [name] and [name] 1.

The materials to be used in the construction of the front elevation shall match those of the attached building.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The property already has a large outbuilding to the rear which is shown on the plans as a garage and gym. It is set down from the rear boundary of the site but is level with the rear of the house. The area to the side of the building is currently surfaced and was in use for parking. The proposal would result in a small addition to the side of the garage. It would have a flat roof at a height similar to the eaves of the existing hipped roof of the main garage building.

The extension to the building would have no material impact upon surrounding properties. The hipped roof of the existing building is visible from the road and other properties but it is not unduly prominent in the street scene, particularly as it is generally viewed against the backdrop of higher properties to the rear. The proposed extension would be barely visible when the temporary gate structure, to the side of the property, is replaced by something more permanent. Although Appeal Decision: 6003611 differing from the roof design of the main outbuilding, a flat roof would not be out of keeping in this rear garden position. The extension is shown to be of double skin construction and the supporting planning statement refers to it as red brick which would match the existing. It would therefore be of a high quality for an outbuilding.

[name] note the planning history, I do not share the council’s concerns. The extension would be barely perceptible from the street or other properties. It would be of good quality construction, matching the existing brickwork; and it would provide useful additional domestic storage in the rear garden where a domestic storage facility would be expected. Whilst the building overall would provide a significant amount of ancillary space for the dwelling, this would not result in inadequate outside space or limited parking provision for the dwelling.

Whilst it has been suggested that such a large building to the rear of a dwelling is not in keeping with the surrounding area, I am not persuaded that this domestic building or its extension, has a significant wider impact. I conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area and it would not be out of keeping with the house or its setting. It would not conflict with the design expectations of policies SP23, LP56 or LP57 of the Local Plan 2036 (2024).

There would be no conflict with the guidance contained within the Supplementary Planning Document: [name] 2 (2018) as it supports high quality garages and outbuildings that do not impact on neighbouring residents and are not prominent. The proposal does not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework as it is likely to function well and would have no material impact on the overall quality of the area.

There are some concerns with regard to the future use of this outbuilding with a suggestion that it already looks like a bungalow. This is not a proposal for a change of use. The use of the building as a separate dwelling, as suggested, or any other use not associated with the dwelling, would require a separate planning application. If such an application was submitted, the proposed use would need to be considered at that time, on its own particular merits. However, there is no suggestion that this is likely to be the case. The proposal is for an extension to an existing domestic outbuilding to provide additional domestic storage and has been considered on that basis.

[name] have considered the submissions put forward by nearby residents and the council, including the planning history, I conclude that the proposal would not result in material harm and there are no matters that weigh significantly against it. I therefore allow the appeal.

I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development and the details of the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. As the plans and application form do not specify materials, I have required that the front wall of the extension, which would be the only wall visible, be faced in brickwork to match the attached building to ensure that the development would have a satisfactory appearance.