Single storey garden store to the rear of the existing garage and shed

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 October 2018 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/18/3205138 4 Little Weighton Road, Walkington, East Riding of Yorkshire HU17 8SP  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 Tom Greenhall against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council.  The application Ref DC/18/00294/PLF/EASTSE, dated 25 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 April 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey garden store to the rear of the existing garage and shed. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property No 2 Little Weighton Road in respect of outlook and sunlight. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling including garages within mature landscaped grounds set back from Little Weighton Road. 4. The proposal is to create a garden store in the form of a single storey extension under a tall and steeply pitched roof to an existing shed off-shoot of a garage situated to the side boundary of the appeal property. The boundary at this point consists of a close boarded fence and, in parts, a hedge. 5. The proposed garden store would be well screened from public view points by the existing dwelling, garage and mature landscaping on the appeal site. However, No 2 Little Weighton Road is situated adjacent to the side boundary of the appeal site and a window serving the kitchen faces directly onto the location of the proposed garden store. This is the only window serving this room. 6. I observed at my site visit that the ground level drops from the rear of the existing garage to the adjacent property. The proposed location of the appeal scheme is therefore situated at a higher level than the kitchen window of No 2. While the existing boundary hedge would soften the appearance of the appeal scheme it would not mitigate the impact of the tall pitched roof. Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/18/3205138 2 7. I find therefore that because the appeal scheme would be situated directly opposite and at a higher level than the kitchen window of No 2 the appeal scheme would appear as a dominant feature impacting on the outlook from the aforementioned window. 8. In support of the appeal, the appellant has noted the distance separating No 2 from the proposed garden store is greater than that typically separating two storey side gable walls of adjacent houses and that the tall pitched roof slopes away from the neighbouring property. 9. Be that as it may, I find that in combination the change in ground levels, the tall pitched roof and the position of the proposed garden store directly opposite the kitchen window of No 2 would result in the appeal scheme having a dominating effect on the outlook from the window of No 2. This would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupants of No 2. 10. The Officer’s report raises concerns that the appeal scheme would result in some loss of sunlight for the occupiers of No 2. The appellant has provided a diagram referring to criteria specified in ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A guide to Good Practice’ and states that the appeal scheme complies with that document. I have not been provided with a copy of that document and it is unclear how the diagram demonstrates the acceptability of the proposal with regards sunlight and so I can only afford this evidence limited weight. 11. The height and mass of the tall roof of the appeal scheme would likely reduce the level of natural sunlight currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No 2 in their kitchen. However, from my observations on site and the evidence before me I do not consider this loss of sunlight would result in such a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers as to warrant dismissal of the appeal on this ground alone. 12. The property lies within the Walkington Conservation Area (CA) the significance of which is defined by properties of a range of ages and styles set within grounds enclosed by hedges and trees. By virtue of the well screened location of the appeal scheme, I find that the proposal would have no material impact on the CA, and as such it would preserve its character and appearance. The appeal scheme would not therefore conflict with the heritage requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. 13. I find therefore that the proposal would not result in a significantly harmful loss of sunlight serving the occupants of No 2 Little Weighton Road. However, with regard to outlook, the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2 and would be in conflict with policy ENV1 (B4) of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework (updated in 2018) in so far as new development is required to have regard to the amenity of existing or proposed properties. 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Brooker INSPECTOR