Erection of shed to front side of property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 July 2018 by JP Tudor BA (Hons), Solicitor (non-practising) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/D/18/3195682 25 Sutherland Avenue, Yate, Bristol BS37 5UE  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 Daniel Bond against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council.  The application Ref PK17/2149/F, dated 5 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2017.  The development proposed is erection of shed to front side of property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The shed has already been constructed on site. Therefore, the application is retrospective. Main Issues 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a two storey detached property with a parking and gravelled area to the front and a rear garden. It is situated at the end of a cul- de-sac of detached and semi-detached dwellings in a residential area. 5. A timber storage shed with a Perspex sheet roof has been constructed on the south-eastern corner of the plot. It is an irregular shape as it follows the line of the boundary. According to the Council, it is approximately 2.2 metres high, 4.1 metres wide to the rear, and 5.9 metres in length, including an angled doorway. 6. Most of the properties along the road have open frontages with pleasant landscaped areas interspersed with hardstandings. The lack of built form creates a sense of space and openness which forms part of the character of the area. As the shed is sited on the southern front part of the plot, it occupies a fairly central position at the end of the cul-de-sac. 7. Although there is a wooden boundary fence to the rear, the timber shed structure projects from it by about 4 metres, at its widest point, and extends almost 6 metres along its full western elevation. Therefore, combined with its Appeal Decision APP/P0119/D/18/3195682 2 central position at the end of the cul-de-sac facing towards the road, it appears visually prominent. As the frontages of other houses are mainly open, save for an occasional low wall, the relatively sizeable timber outbuilding forms a discordant addition at the end of the road to the detriment of the street scene. 8. Therefore, I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it is contrary to policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2006-20271 and polices PSP1 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan2 which, amongst other things, require that development is of high quality design and that the siting, form, scale and massing respect the character of the site and its context, including the boundary treatments and the hard and soft landscaping of the street and surrounding area. Planning Balance and Conclusion 9. The appellant has advised that although the shed is used to store some household and work related items, its primary function is to store equipment required by his disabled child. I have taken full account of the appellant’s submissions and the content of a letter written by an Officer from the Council’s Department of Children, Adults and Health confirming the position and providing further details. 10. I have had also had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 11. The Council Officer’s Report advises that, during the course of the application process, the appellant was asked whether there was any alternative location within the property where the storage shed could be relocated to avoid the adverse impact on the street scene. According to the Council, its Officers suggested that relocating the shed to the rear garden of the dwelling, where it would be less obtrusive, would be one possible alternative. However, it advises that the appellant has not provided any explanation as to why that option would not be not be feasible. 12. I have, in accordance with the PSED, considered the impact of dismissing the appeal. Although the requirement for a dry storage area for the relevant equipment is acknowledged, no further information has been submitted with the appeal to indicate why the shed or an alternative storage facility could not be located elsewhere within the property or why it needs to be at the front. 13. Overall therefore, whilst I am sympathetic to the appellant’s circumstances they do not outweigh the harm which I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and the conflict with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. JP Tudor INSPECTOR 1 Adopted December 2013 2 Adopted November 2017