Appeal 6003676

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed on site that the appeal development has already been constructed.

There is a typing error in the Council’s Notice of Decision. Policy SP58 should read SP55. Both main parties were aware of this when making their appeal submissions.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Quest, [address], (Quest) with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling with a detached garage to the front and side of the property. The appeal development extends the detached garage with a single storey structure constructed of timber cladding and incorporating upcycled UPVC windows and door. The structure wraps around the garage elevation facing the rear garden of the appeal property and that along the shared boundary with the neighbouring property at Quest. The structure is close to and projects above the boundary fence shared with Quest.

On site, I observed the garage extension from the small rear garden at Quest. Notwithstanding its modest scale, the appeal development by reason of its proximity, height and use of stark timber materials gives rise to unacceptable overbearing and visual effects that spoil the enjoyment of that outdoor amenity space for the occupiers of Quest. I do not consider staining the timber a different colour or weathering of the timber would overcome this harm.

I also looked through the rear elevation window from within the kitchen of Quest. I noted that the outlook is already compromised to some extent by the single storey outbuilding at [address] to the rear boundary. However, that boundary is at a further distance from the rear elevation than the appeal development. The outlook is also affected by the presence of the garage at the appeal property. Even so, the extension to the garage has a more significant visual effect than the garage itself as it is nearer to the boundary with Quest and so it is more obvious.

Overall, I consider the appeal development to have an overbearing impact as its proximity, materials and height create an undue sense of enclosure, further diminishing the outlook from the rear garden and kitchen window to an unacceptable level.

The appeal development therefore causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Quest due to an overbearing effect. Consequently, the appeal development conflicts with Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan ([name]) (2014) (CS) and Policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan (Sites & Policies) (2018) (LP). Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development has regard to sensitive land uses and are designed to avoid adverse effects on the amenity of any land use.

My attention was drawn to the fact that there was previously a timber structure adjoining the garage. This structure is no longer there and so its visual effects and impact on Quest attract very limited weight in my assessment.

The appellant cites other benefits associated with the appeal proposal including the employment of contractors, added value to property, additional storage space whilst retaining vehicle parking within the garage, environmentally friendly timber materials and upcycled UPVC windows and door and other recycled materials. These purported benefits collectively attract limited weight given the scale of the development and they do not overcome the identified harm.

The development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.