Appeal 6004326

The appeal is dismissed.

At my site visit I observed that the outbuilding had already been partially constructed. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal, which I have assessed on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area; and (ii) the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling with an attached single storey garage, within a residential area. The property benefits from a relatively large rear garden, surrounded on three sides by neighbouring residential properties and their associated garden areas. There are multiple outbuildings in the vicinity, mostly modest in scale and visually subordinate to the host dwelling.

The appeal proposal relates to the construction of an outbuilding, which is under construction, positioned along the width of the rear garden, close to the side and rear boundaries.

An earlier application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) was initially refused1 and subsequently granted2, following provision of more detailed information regarding the intended use of the scheme.

However, the proposal differs from the building authorised by the LDC in terms of an increase in height and canopy to the front. The canopy forms an integral and permanent part of the development and makes a clear contribution to its overall scale and visual impact.

Therefore, whilst the appellant has referred to permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), the outbuilding as constructed exceeds the permitted height limits and therefore does not benefit from those rights. Furthermore, assessment under permitted development legislation is separate from consideration under the development plan, and therefore different conclusions may reasonably be reached.

The Council’s Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)3 provides relevant guidance. It advises that outbuildings should remain subordinate and should not appear bulky, dominant or excessive. In this case, the substantial footprint which exceeds that of the host dwelling, together with its elongated form, limited boundary setbacks and uninterrupted roof line cause the outbuilding to appear visually dominant within the garden. The canopy reinforces, rather than mitigates, that perception. Consequently, the outbuilding would be incongruous within its domestic context and uncharacteristic of the prevailing pattern of development.

Due to the scheme’s siting and length, it presents as a long and continuous built form within a confined domestic garden environment. I accept that the outbuilding would have limited visibility from the public realm. However, limited public visibility does not remove the requirement for development to achieve a high standard of design and respect the character of its setting, particularly within shared residential environments.

The materials proposed, by reason of their choice and colour, do not reflect those typically found within the surrounding area and thus appear out of keeping with surrounding development. While external materials could potentially be addressed through planning conditions, this would not overcome the fundamental harm arising from the scale, siting and form of the development.

The appellant has brought to my attention an appeal decision4 for a ‘garden room’ at no [address]. However, this has a smaller footprint than the appeal scheme, and its siting provides a different relationship with surrounding dwellings. Moreover, I must assess the scheme on its own merits, and the outbuilding exampled does not justify a development of the form proposed.

The granted LDC forms a fallback position. However, as I have found that the appeal scheme would not be preferable, the existence of the fallback position does not weigh in favour of the appeal. 1 24/00331.CLP 2 24/00432/CLP 3 Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document, [name], April 2019, Oadby & Wigston 4 21/00204/FUL

For the reasons set out above, the proposal fails to respect the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy 6 ([name] and Materials) and Policy 44 (Landscape and Character) of the Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (OADWLP) 5, associated SPD guidance, and the design objectives of National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)6, which seek to secure well designed, sympathetic development.

The outbuilding is located within a rear garden and is visible from neighbouring dwellings and their rear gardens on three sides. This includes dwelling plots of nos 4 and [address] which adjoin the appeal site on either side, and nos 4 and [address] which abut the rear boundary.

The appellant maintains that outlook is not a material consideration. While there is no right to a particular view, outlook is a recognised planning concept which relates to the degree of enclosure, dominance and visual presence experienced by occupiers. Paragraph 135(f) of the Framework places significant emphasis on achieving a high standard of amenity for existing users, within which outlook is a relevant consideration.

Due to its large footprint, the outbuilding extends a considerable distance along the length of the shared boundaries. The outbuilding is sited close to the rear and side boundaries and projects in height noticeably above boundary fencing. It would therefore form a prominent and continuous feature within neighbouring garden outlooks of nos 4 and [address], and nos 4 and [address].

For properties nos 4 and [address] to the rear, the outbuilding provides a built form of significant scale and mass which would erode the sense of openness currently experienced and would appear unduly dominant.

Regarding the side adjoining neighbouring properties nos 4 and [address], occupants would look directly onto the outbuilding across the shared boundary. In this relationship, the limited separation distance, combined with the building’s length and height above the fence line, would result in an overbearing and enclosing presence when experienced from those gardens. The development would dominate views, give rise to a sense of visual intrusion and materially diminish the quality of outlook.

The appellant contends that boundary trees and vegetation would screen the building. However, despite their maturity, the vegetation is sparse and does not obscure the majority of the elevations. Given the building’s height, any screening would be limited and intermittent and would not materially reduce its visual prominence.

The appellant also argues that decrease in height from the front to the rear of the outbuilding due to the sloped roof results in greater distancing and reduced impact. However, the slight decrease in height does not outweigh the harms identified above. 5 The Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan, 2011-2031, [name] 2019, Oadby & Wigston Borough Council 6 National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024

While planning policy does not seek to prevent all visibility between properties, the scale and prominence of this outbuilding go beyond what would reasonably be expected of an incidental domestic structure. The resulting outlook would be materially more constrained and oppressive than the existing situation.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring living conditions in respect of outlook, contrary to paragraph 135(f) of The Framework, and Policy 6 ([name] and Materials) of the OADWLP which seeks to protect local amenity. Policy 44 (Landscape and Character) of OADWLP and SPD guidance relate to character rather than amenity and are not directly relevant to this issue; I therefore afford them limited weight in this context.

The appellant has referred to case law7 in support of their position. I have had regard to this. However, each assessment remains a matter of planning judgement, based on the specific facts of the case, the site context and the development plan. Therefore, this does not alter my conclusions.

I understand the desire to maximise the use of space in the dwelling for the storage of the applicant’s collection of vehicles and as a garden room and recognise that permitted development may allow an alternative proposal to be implemented. But neither of these matters justifies the construction of what would be a fundamentally inappropriate outbuilding.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.