Appeal 6009523

The appeal is dismissed.

At time of my site visit, ground-level works had been undertaken and therefore construction of a garage building had commenced. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal which I have assessed on the basis of the submitted plans.

In summary, the proposal seeks to amend condition no 2 by substituting drawing AD-24-1295 Rev D1 with a drawing containing a revised design for the proposed garage/gym building, for the purpose of providing additional studio/workshop ancillary accommodation.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect that varying the condition would have on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwelling, “Boyton”, having particular regard to outlook. 1 AD-24-1295 - [name] (SHEET 6 OF 6) [name]/gym Elevations and Floor Plan received 12 March 2025

[site address] is a detached house situated within a spacious garden. The plot boundary is irregular in shape and projects behind the rear elevation of the neighbouring two-storey dwelling, Boyton.

The rear elevation of Boyton includes a number of windows which face the shared boundary. There is limited separation between Boyton and the shared boundary, with the space between Boyton’s rear elevation and the boundary comprising a small courtyard garden accessed by a rear door.

The original planning permission2 includes construction of a new detached double garage with home gym, sited close to the shared boundary. The proposal would not alter the siting, orientation or footprint of the garage building approved under the original planning permission and would be constructed in the same materials of facing brick and clay pantiles. As indicated by the revised drawing3, in addition to internal alterations, the proposal would incorporate a first-floor storey to accommodate a workshop/studio space.

The proposed garage building would be approximately 6.2m tall. This represents a significant increase in height, relative to the 4m tall garage building approved under the original planning permission. The pitched roof form would minimise the mass of the upper storey to some degree. However, the proposed dormer windows would add considerable bulk to the roof. Consequently, the proposed garage would be a 1.5 storey building of substantial scale and mass.

The end elevation of the proposed garage building would be oriented toward Boyton’s rear elevation and the garage building’s rear elevation would face the neighbouring dwelling’s private rear garden. The proposed garage building would be sited close to the shared boundary, with its end and rear elevations situated just 2m from the plot boundaries.

The proposed garage would significantly exceed the height of the boundary fence, and the blank brickwork at the end elevation would be clearly visible above the boundary treatment. The proposed garage would therefore appear overbearing and visually prominent from the private garden of Boyton. This overbearing impact would be most acute in the small courtyard area and would be particularly noticeable when using Boyton’s rear door.

The garage building’s south elevation would be sited just 7m from the north-facing windows of Boyton. Due to its height and close siting, the proposed garage building would obscure views from rear-facing rooms of Boyton, where it would appear uncomfortably close and visually dominant. In particular, the habitable room at the two-storey outrigger, which is served by a large, clear-glazed, first-floor window, would be particularly affected.

Were the original planning permission implemented, the occupants of Boyton would have a view of the approved garage building. However, by virtue of its height and mass, the appeal proposal is of significantly greater scale than the approved scheme and would materially differ in terms of its effect on outlook. Therefore, the extant planning permission would not justify the proposal. 2 LPA ref: DC/25/0453/FUL 3 Drawing no AD-24-1295 [name]

I note that the present occupier of Boyton has provided written comments in support of the proposal. However, dwellings change ownership throughout their lifetime. I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the submitted evidence and my observations from the site visit, and for the reasons set out above I consider the proposal would have an adverse impact on outlook.

Consequently, I find the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of Boyton. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan 2019 which requires development protect the amenity of neighbouring uses.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.