Appeal 6004269

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues of the appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether or not the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for existing or future occupiers, with particular regard to outdoor accommodation; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site is the garden of a semi-detached bungalow off [address], a residential street. The land slopes from the road down towards the site. The works to level the garden appeared to have been carried out when I visited the site.

The proposal is for a garden building located at the end of the rear garden, on a levelled and raised area of ground. The building would be of a simple contemporary design, rectangular in shape, single storey with a mono-pitch roof, bifold doors and a window and is described as an annexe on the plans and is shown to have the proposed use for living accommodation.

The existing bungalow is set in a modest plot, and the proposed building would utilise a substantial part of the rear garden. I observed several garden buildings located within the rear gardens of surrounding properties, therefore the building would not appear at odds with surrounding development. Due to the position of the building within the rear garden, together with its mono-pitch roof design and contemporary materials, I do not consider that the building would result in a disproportionate or incongruous feature in relation to the existing bungalow which has a pitched roof, and it would not detract from the character of the existing bungalow. Furthermore, due to the position within the rear garden behind the bungalow, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the street scene.

Due to the concealed nature of the raised area, I do not consider that the levelling of the site is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

In conclusion and for the above reasons, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, the proposal would not conflict with Policy CS74 of the [name] (CS) insofar as it relates to this main issue, which expects high quality development. Furthermore, the proposal would not conflict with Policies H14 and BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) insofar as they relate to this main issue, which in combination expect new buildings to be well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring and surrounding buildings.

The proposed development would also not conflict with the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) only insofar as it relates to this main issue which requires house extensions to not detract from the dwelling or general appearance of the street or locality.

The proposal would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework

Due to the size of the existing rear garden of the property, the proposed outbuilding would take up a considerable amount of the rear garden. The Council’s officer report states that the amount of private rear garden remaining would be 25sq.m.

The host property is a two-bedroom bungalow, the SPG states that in most circumstances, the Council considers a garden size of 50sq.m the minimum for a two or more bedroomed house. Whilst the guidance is within an SPG and not within a development plan policy, the SPG is nevertheless a material planning consideration. In this case, there would be a significant shortfall, around half of the recommended amount of useable private outdoor accommodation for existing or future occupants.

The appellant’s statement of case says that the guidance is related to extensions and is therefore directed at development that would extend from a dwelling and into its garden. Whilst this may be the case, the guidance relates to the amount of garden remaining to serve a dwelling of two bedrooms or more. Accordingly, whilst this proposal does not exactly fit the scenario as set out in the SPG, I do not consider that it is unreasonable to use the figures within the SPG as a guideline, as the construction of the proposed domestic building would result in a substantially reduced garden area.

The appellant’s statement of case sets out that the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) allows for garden buildings which must not occupy more than 50% of curtilage of the dwellinghouse, provided the building meets certain criteria. Whilst this is a benchmark used for the purposes of the GPDO. In this case, a planning application was submitted for the development, and I am dealing with the proposal on its planning merits and in the context of the development plan and any other material considerations.

Due to the extent of the shortfall in garden area, and notwithstanding the proposed use of the building as a transitional place between the home and garden, I consider that there would be insufficient outdoor accommodation for occupants to enjoy the outdoor space at the rear of the property, which in my judgement would feel restricted. In addition, there would be reduced space for domestic paraphernalia, storage or outdoor seating.

In conclusion and for the above reasons, the proposal would not provide satisfactory living conditions for existing or future occupiers, with particular regard to outdoor accommodation. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy H14 of the UDP insofar as it relates to this main issue, which requires that new development will be permitted where it would not cause serious loss of existing garden space.

The residential properties in the immediate area are closely arranged, inevitably leading to some intervisibility between dwellings. The proposed outbuilding would face towards the host dwelling and would face the neighbouring property at No [address] at a slightly oblique angle, with the bifold doors very close to the boundary between the properties.

The neighbouring property at No.[address] is situated at a similar ground level to the proposed outbuilding. However, the existing boundary treatment consists of a low fence with significant gaps, which fails to provide effective screening. The proposed plans do show limited detail of a slightly increased height boundary treatment on the boundary with the neighbour at No. 31. However, due to the height of windows and doors on the proposed building, I am unconvinced that this would prevent overlooking from the proposed outbuilding to the neighbouring property.

The appellant’s evidence states that the proposed outbuilding would not introduce any elevated windows, balconies or terraces, however the building would be constructed on raised ground. Notwithstanding this, given the very close proximity between the proposed outbuilding and the rear windows of No.31, I consider that the resultant level of overlooking would lead to a material loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, the proposed use of the outbuilding as living accommodation would intensify the level of activity within this part of the site, exacerbating the sense of enclosure and overlooking.

The proposed raising and levelling of the garden would not, in isolation, cause significantly greater issues with privacy over and above what would currently be experienced, due to the existing boundary treatments.

Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policy H14 of the UDP which seeks to ensure that new development would not deprive residents of privacy.

The appellant’s statement of case sets out that residents of No. 31 did not object to the proposed development. However, the absence of an objection does not overcome the harm identified in the main issues.

The appellant has expressed general dissatisfaction with the decision making from the Council with reference to the officer report. This is not a matter for me to consider as part of this appeal. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on the planning merits of the development only.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.