Appeal 6004511

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission1 was granted for a detached garden room at the appeal site. The building was not built in accordance with the approved plans. As such, the appellant is now seeking to retain the garden room as-built.

Following the site visit an amended plan was submitted by the appellant which they assert is reflective of the as-built height on site, and I noted such at the site visit. Although the appeals process should not be used to evolve a scheme, in this instance, I am satisfied that the amendments are not substantial and that accepting the plans would not prejudice any interested party. Therefore, I have considered drawing number TM/LK/230326/01Sect73 in coming to my decision.

Although not completed in its entirety, the garden building has been substantially constructed, for the avoidance of doubt the appeal has been determined based on the appeal drawings. The main parties agree that the changes to the materials, fenestration and footprint of the garden room are acceptable.

Having regard to the above, the main issue is the effect of the increased height of the garden room on the character and appearance of the area. 1 Application Reference: 25/00141/HFUL

The area is suburban, predominantly characterised by semi-detached properties. The long rear garden of the appeal property is typical of the area, enclosed by a mixture of high- and low-level boundary treatments and comprising a selection of mature planting. Whilst there is a variety of outbuildings and garden structures within surrounding gardens, these appear light weight with notably domestic scale and proportion.

The main parties agree that the previously approved garden room would have been relatively large if it had been constructed. The garden room subject of this appeal is in the same position adjacent the rear boundary and remains single storey in height. It also remains ancillary in function and subservient to the main dwelling.

I note that the footprint and volume have been reduced, by approximately 15% and 10% respectively, however, the overall height has significantly increased. Despite the reduced depth and width, due to the increased pitch, the roof forms a bulkier and more prominent portion of the building, resulting in the garden room appearing more substantial in scale, even when compared to the previously approved scheme.

Although there are limited public views, the garden room is an unduly prominent structure and is clearly visible from multiple vantage points both indoors and outdoors. In these views the building is a dominant and incongruous addition to the rear garden environment when viewed against the surrounding small-scale outbuildings and boundary treatments.

Therefore, I conclude that, despite the fallback position, the increased height and bulk of the garden room harms the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with policies 55, 56, 57 and 59 of the Cambridge City Local Plan (October

where collectively they seek to ensure development to be of a high quality and to respond positively to its context, using appropriate local characteristics to inform massing, scale and height.

Similarly, there is conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where it requires development that adds to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting and maintain a strong sense of place.

I note that the steeper roof pitch may well allow for optimised PV panel performance. Whilst the use of such technology is beneficial in achieving the transition to net zero, as outlined by the Framework, I have no substantiated evidence before me regarding the uplift in energy production achieved when compared to the previously approved pitch, nor that the scheme before me would be the only way to achieve the optimal pitch. As such, this matter does not outweigh the harm as identified above.

The garden building has not resulted in harm to the living conditions of surrounding residents with regard to overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact and tree and flood risk issues have been adequately addressed. Moreover, there are no designated heritage assets or special policy designations that would be undermined. However, this would be expected of any well-designed scheme and therefore are neutral matters which neither weigh in favour of nor against the proposal.

I acknowledge the appellants frustrations regarding the Councils enforcement and application processes and neighbourly relations. Whether or not the Council would take enforcement action is not a matter for me in this appeal. I have determined the appeal based on its own merits and these matters do not alter my findings on

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.