Appeal 6003957

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider that there are two main issues: a) the effect of the proposed swimming pool building on the character and appearance of the host property; and, b) the pool building’s effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers in terms of visual amenity.

The appeal property, [site address] (No 162) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located in an established residential area. Due to the slope of the land the garden of No 160 is some 0.65 metres or so higher than the garden of the appeal property, and No 164 is approximately 0.25 metres lower than No 162.

The appellant proposes the construction of a single storey pitched roof building in the rear garden of the appeal property to house a new swimming pool. The building would measure 5.5 x 10.0 metres with a ridge height of 4.0 metres.

My attention has been drawn to the Council’s Local Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (Adopted 15 December 2010) (SPD). Paragraph 6.78 addresses the design of, amongst other things outbuildings. It advises, along with other matters, that in order to reduce the impact of outbuildings on neighbouring gardens any such structure should normally be located away from the boundaries of the site by at least 2.0 metres, in which case its height should not exceed 4.0 metres for a structure with a dual pitched roof, or 3.0 metres in any other case. If the building is within 2.0 metres of any boundary, then a maximum height of 2.5 metres is recommended.

The pool building would be located towards the end of the rear garden, furthest from the rear of the house. Due to the irregular shape of the plot the distance to the boundary to No 160 would vary from 1.2 metres to 2.8 metres, and to No 164 it would be about 1.5 metres, the distance to the rear boundary would vary from 2.1 to 4.0 metres.

I observed that garden outbuildings are a common feature in the rear gardens of [address]. Nevertheless, due to the narrowness of the rear garden of No 162, the distance of the building from the side boundaries and its overall height and three-dimensional form I consider that the proposed building would in this context appear as both obtrusive, incongruous.

I therefore conclude in respect of the first main issue that proposed building would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host property and due primarily to its height the wider area. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), Policies D3 – paragraphs D(1), (7) and (11) of the London Plan (Adopted 2021) (LP), Core Policy CS1.B of the [name] (Adopted 2012) (CS), Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan ([name] 2013) (LP-DMP) and the SPD as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of design and layout and the developments impact on the local character and appearance. Living conditions:

Given the overall height of the proposed swimming pool building, its length, its proximity to the common boundaries of the neighbouring dwellings No’s 160 and 164, and more particularly as the garden of No 164 is positioned lower than that of No 162 I consider, on balance that the proposed structure would appear visually obtrusive and incongruous from neighbouring gardens.

I therefore conclude, in respect of the second main issue, that the proposed building would be so visually detrimental to the neighbouring occupiers as to cause harm to their living conditions. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the Framework, and [name] D3. D-(1), (7) and (11) CS Policy CS1, LP-DMP Policy DM1 and the SPD as they relate to the protection of residential living conditions.

I note form the evidence before me that the appellant has, subsequent to the determination of the original planning application submitted an application for a certificate of lawfulness in respect of a similar swimming pool building but with a 2.5 metres high flat roof. No details of that proposal have been provided, and I have not been advised of the outcome of that application. Accordingly, I have given this consideration no weight in the determination of this appeal.

I accept, as suggest by the appellants, that a pitched roof may, in many situations, be far more visually acceptable. However, I do not consider, in this context, given the harm I have identified that would be the case here.