Children’s playhouse which will be fully balustraded with access from ground to door only to be able to gain access into playhouse. The bottom will be turned into a log cabin/summer house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/D/17/3190472 12 Notley Green, Great Notley, Braintree, Essex CM77 7US  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 Sharon Walsh against the decision of Braintree District Council.  The application Ref 17/01536/FUL, dated 11 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 October 2017.  The development proposed is described on the application form as “children’s playhouse which will be fully balustraded with access from ground to door only to be able to gain access into playhouse. The bottom will be turned into a log cabin/summer house”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The playhouse has already been constructed and erected on a raised platform in the rear garden of the appeal site. There is currently no access from the ground or any balustrading around the platform. The appellant notes that the overall structure has not been finished due to an injury whilst building it and that there is no intention of leaving the structure in its current state. Nevertheless, as the structure is largely built, I have effectively treated this appeal as a retrospective application. 3. The Council refers to Policies LPP1, LPP50 and LPP55 of the Braintree District Publication Draft Local Plan in the two reasons for refusal. I do not know the extent of unresolved objections to these policies at examination and as such, they only carry limited weight. However, they follow a similar approach to Policies RLP3 and RLP90 of the adopted Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 (LPR) in terms of the two main issues, so this does not have a significant effect on my consideration of this appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development on (a) the character and appearance of the area and (b) the living conditions of occupiers of 9 Highclere Road and 14 Notley Green with regard to privacy and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site at 12 Notley Green contains a modern detached property on a large suburban housing development. Notley Green and adjoining streets are Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/D/17/3190472 2 characterised by detached properties with reasonably sized rear gardens. At my site visit, I did not observe any large or raised structures in any rear garden near to the appeal site other than the contested playhouse, which gives these rear gardens a low key and modest character and appearance. 6. The rear garden at the appeal site contains established vegetation along the shared boundary with adjoining properties which helps to provide screening especially when foliage is present. The playhouse is not supported by any of the neighbouring trees as they are not substantial enough. Instead, it sits on top of a raised platform which is roughly level with the top of the adjoining boundary fences. The height of the playhouse from its base to the apex is approximately the same height as the raised platform. 7. The development has limited views from the pavement and road at the front of the appeal site due to its location behind the house. However, it is a large and very conspicuous structure when seen from the rear garden. It does not reflect any other rear garden structure in terms of height and scale that I saw at my site visit. Therefore, it looks out of keeping and visually inconsistent with the low key and modest nature of the area’s rear gardens. 8. Concluding on this main issue, the development results in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it does not accord with Policies RLP3 and RLP90 of the LPR. Amongst other things, these policies seek to protect the character of the locality where the layout, height and mass of development shall be in harmony with the character and appearance of the area. The development also does not meet the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in terms of securing good design. Living conditions 9. The development is located in the bottom corner of the rear garden adjacent to the shared boundary with 14 Notley Green and 9 Highclere Road. During my site visit I visited the property and rear garden of No 14 in order to better understand the effect of the development on occupiers of neighbouring properties. 10. The rear elevation and garden at No 14 faces directly towards the development. From the ground floor windows in the rear elevation of No 14 and from its garden, the playhouse was very visible above the boundary fence. Due to the size and height of the playhouse and its incongruous position above the fencing, it partly encloses the garden at No 14 and detracts from views across it which would otherwise be of boundary fencing and vegetation. As a consequence, there is a negative effect on outlook for occupiers of No 14. While I did not visit No 9, I observed that there are windows on the rear elevation of this property and the playhouse is to one side of the rear garden. Due to the angle between the rear elevation windows at No 9 and the playhouse, there is likely to be less of a direct view from within No 9, but the structure is noticeable from the garden. Thus, it results in some enclosure to the garden No 9 and harm to the outlook of its occupiers. 11. Windows in the front and north-west side elevation of the playhouse were visible from No 14 and anyone standing on the platform in front of the playhouse door would also be clearly seen. Thus, there is an issue of overlooking and a loss of privacy to occupiers of No 14. There are no windows on the rear and south-eastern side elevation of the playhouse, so there is no Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/D/17/3190472 3 overlooking issue from within the playhouse to No 9, while the bulk of the playhouse limits overlooking from the platform. As such, there is a limited effect on the privacy of occupiers of No 9. 12. The degree of harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 9 and 14 depends on the time of year and the extent of foliage on the boundary vegetation. Photographs submitted by the appellant shows that considerable screening is possible during summer months. However, the playhouse could be used at any time of the year as it would not be reasonable to restrict the use of a domestic garden structure by planning condition. Moreover, such a condition would not address the effect on outlook especially during winter months. The appellant indicates a willingness to remove the existing side window, but the front windows, door and platform would remain. The appellant has also suggested further screening to the side and rear, but given the proximity to the boundary and the height of screening needed, it is difficult to envisage an acceptable form of screening in terms of vegetation or other means. Therefore, negative privacy and outlook issues are difficult to mitigate or avoid. 13. Concluding on this main issue, the development has a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 9 Highclere Road and 14 Notley Green with regard to outlook for both properties and privacy for No 14. Therefore, it does not accord with Policies RLP3 or RLP90 of the LPR which, amongst other things, seek to avoid unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential properties. The development also fails to meet the aims of paragraph 17 of the NPPF which seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Conclusion 14. While I recognise that the appellant has built the playhouse for her children to enjoy, this benefit does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge INSPECTOR