Appeal 6005730

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new outbuilding formed to rear of property finished in a weatherboard cladding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01607/FULHH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved drawing numbers: Location Plan, 0330-A-001 and 0330-A-200.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on approved drawing number 0330-A- 200.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the development was originally described on the application form as, ‘new outbuilding formed to rear of property. Finished in a weatherboard cladding. To be used as a beauty cosmetic studio for the use of the applicant and their partner’.

The Council has stated in the [name] that, as this was a householder application, the use of the building was not assessed and that consideration was limited solely to the physical form of the development. Therefore, the matter of the use of the building is not before me for consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, especially the occupiers of [address] (No 14) with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling within a residential area. Permitted development rights1 for the erection of outbuildings, extensions and garages were removed as a condition attached to the planning permission2 for the site’s redevelopment.

The proposed ‘L’ shaped outbuilding would adjoin the side garden boundary with No 14 for the full depth of the appeal site’s garden, extending approximately 8.2 metres. It would also project along approximately half of the rear boundary shared with [address] (No 7) with a width of approximately 7 metres. It would have a flat roof, with an overall height of approximately 2.8 metres and an eaves height of 2.6 metres.

Whilst the depth of the structure would result in some degree of enclosure to the rear garden of No 14, it would not create a tunnelling effect, as open aspects would be retained in other directions. The upper section of the outbuilding would be visible above the boundary fence, seen obliquely from the rear windows of No 14 and from within its rear garden. However, the flat roof is not of a scale or form that would result in a harmful sense of enclosure.

During my site visit, I noted the presence of established shrubs and vegetation within the rear gardens of No’s 7 and 14 along the shared boundary with the appeal site. This vegetation already extends above the height of the boundary fencing and would soften and provide some screening of the proposed structure. Although there is limited separation between the proposed structure and boundaries on the appeal site, this arrangement is characteristic of other gardens in the surrounding area. In this regard, the pitched roof of the garage at No 18 which extends into the rear garden on the boundary with No 16, was also visible above the boundary fence, reflecting the established design and layout of the estate.

The rear garden of No 14 is of a sufficient depth and width to avoid an oppressive sense of outlook or enclosure. Accordingly, the proposal would not result in a detrimental overbearing impact on the occupiers of No 14 or occupiers of neighbouring properties, nor would it cause a significant sense of enclosure.

In conclusion, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 14, or other neighbours, through its effect on outlook. The proposal accords with Policy SP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (2021) which seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future residents and users. It also accords with Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (2022) which seeks to ensure buildings and structures are designed and orientated to ensure adequate outlook for future and existing residents. For the same reasons, the proposal does 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 2 Planning permission reference - TEN/212/78 (Condition 4) not conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks a high standard of amenity for all.

Conditions relating to the commencement of development and for the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary for enforcement purposes and clarity.

In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area, a condition is necessary requiring the external materials of the extension to be those detailed in the submitted plans.

For the reasons given, the proposal would accord with the development plan when taken as a whole and the Framework. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.