Garden Room in front garden. New carport to rear of property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 January 2017 by R J Marshall LLB DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21 February 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/16/3165615 17, Station Road, Wimborne Minster, BH21 1RG  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Hugo Rowland-Hill against the decision of East Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 3/16/0993/HOU, dated 3 June 2016, was refused by notice dated 11 October 2016.  The development proposed is Garden Room in front garden. New carport to rear of property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to garden Room in front garden. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to new carport to rear of property and planning permission is granted for new carport to rear of property at 17, Station Road, Wimborne Minster, BH21 1RG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/16/0993/HOU, dated 3 June 2016,and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) No development shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the car port hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans in so far as they relate to the development that has been permitted: 1525 07C,01,05D,06B and 02. Background and application for costs 2. The appeal site lies within a well-established suburban area. The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. It has a northern elevation, with quite a utilitarian and appearance, facing onto a narrow access road which serves the appeal site and other properties in the vicinity. The southern elevation of the property contains its principal elevation albeit it faces onto what has the appearance of a lengthy rear garden. Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/16/3165615 2 3. I am making a split decision and allowing the appeal in part as no objection has been raised by the Council to the proposed new carport which would face onto the access road. From what I saw I have no reason to disagree with that view. This part of the scheme is clearly separable from the proposed garden room which would be located to the south of the house in its lengthy garden. . 4. An application for costs was made by Mr Hugo Rowland-Hill against East Dorset District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed garden room on the living conditions of those at No. 20c Station Road with special reference to visual impact and general disturbance. Reasons Visual impact and noise and disturbance 6. The proposed garden room would be located around three quarters of the way down the garden. This location has been chosen in part to avoid a high pressure water main running through the site. The building would be a fairly substantial structure occupying almost the full garden width and abutting the eastern garden boundary. It would have a pitched roof with semi-hipped ends. 7. Close to the western boundary of the site and the location for the proposed garden room lies No. 20c Station Road, a relatively new bungalow in a backland location. I see no reason why the proposed garden room would create any more noise and disturbance to the occupants of this dwelling than would arise from the general use of the garden. I am especially of this view since the appellant has removed a proposed decking area to the rear of the garden room which would take it away from an area near the neighbours’ bedroom window. 8. However, turning to visual impact the side elevation of the proposed garden room would be looked onto by a lounge window in the neighbours’ bungalow. This window is in close proximity to the site boundary. A fence around 2 metres high currently prevents an unobstructed view from this window. However, the height of the garden room would be such as to restrict views to a much greater extent and make the proposed development appear unacceptably intrusive. This would be so even with the semi-hipped roof design of the proposed building which has been designed to meet the 25 degree rule and prevent undue loss of light. 9. In arriving at this view I appreciate that the lounge window in question is a secondary widow to the living room. Larger patio door windows face down the neighbours’ garden and away from the proposed garden room. However, the layout of the living room is such that, notwithstanding this, with the side window obscured to a greater extent unacceptable harm would arise through visual impact. 10. I conclude that although the proposed garden room would cause no unacceptable harm through noise and disturbance it would be detrimental to the living conditions of those at No. 20c Station Road with special reference to visual impact. This would run counter to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework that new development should contribute positively to making places better for people. Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/16/3165615 3 Other matters 11. The appellants’ removal from the scheme of a wood burning stove should resolve concerns on smoke pollution. Given the location of sheds in other by gardens nearby the proposed garden room would not detract from the character and appearance of the area. However, lack of harm in these respects does not make the proposed garden room acceptable given the harm found on the main issue. 12. I appreciate that I have come to a different view on the proposal to Council Officers who recommended the development for permission. However all that I saw supports the stance taken by the Council. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. R J Marshall INSPECTOR