Detached outbuilding in rear garden

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2019 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/D/18/3217822 11 Stanton Avenue, Litherland, Sefton L21 9LJ • 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 John Eccleshall against the decision of Sefton Council. • The application Ref DC/2018/01673, dated 7 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 November 2018. • The development proposed is a detached outbuilding in rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The outbuilding was partly constructed at the time of my visit. This has no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the case. 3. I understand that an Enforcement Notice relating to the outbuilding was served on the appellant on 11 December 2018. The appeal before me relates to the Council’s Decision to refuse an application for planning permission for the outbuilding rather than the Enforcement Notice. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area, along with its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal relates to a semi-detached property located in a road of similar dwellings. Their broadly consistent scale and long rear gardens are noticeable elements which contribute to the overall character, appearance and pattern of development within the local area. 6. The proposal seeks planning permission for a detached outbuilding which is partly constructed at the bottom of the rear garden. The footprint of the Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/18/3217822 2 structure is very large and occupies a large proportion of the garden. The building also has a pitched roof with a tall ridge, which accentuates its overall scale and bulk. 7. Although the building would be finished in appropriate external materials, its overall size and scale is out of proportion with what is a modest semi-detached dwelling. The building dominates the rear garden and it is also out of keeping with the established pattern of development within the local area which, from what I could see, comprises well proportioned dwellings with deep largely undeveloped rear gardens. 8. For these reasons, I find that the outbuilding has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. In such terms, it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), policy HC4 of the adopted Sefton Local Plan (LP) and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled ’House Extensions’ (SPD), which all promote high quality design that complements the proportions of the host dwelling and the character of the surrounding area. Living conditions 9. The building sits close to the side and rear boundaries of the rear garden of the appeal property and as explained, it is deep and it is tall. At some 2.5 metres, the eaves of the building are taller than the fences and vegetation which define the boundaries with the properties either side (Nos. 9 and 13 Stanton Avenue). The roof rises away from these two boundaries and this ensures that the building does not cast undue shadow over these two gardens. However, the large expanse of the side elevations and roof is imposing when viewed from them. 10. The rear section of the roof of the building would be finished with a hip rather than a gable. This would take the ridge of the building further away from the rear boundary than a gable. Nevertheless, the building would remain very tall and oppressive when viewed from the gardens of the properties directly to the rear (Nos. 120 and 122 Hatton Hill Road). This effect is exacerbated by the fact that these properties sit at a lower ground level. 11. I understand that a mature tree previously sat within the rear garden of No. 120 Hatton Hill Road, close to the rear boundary. Whilst I am not able to fully assess the former impact of this tree, I am of the view that it cannot reasonably have affected the outlook from all neighbouring properties in the same manner as the appeal building. In any event, it is no longer present. 12. For the above reasons, I find that the outbuilding unduly harms the outlook for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and I am not satisfied that a scheme of landscaping would adequately mitigate the adverse effect. In this respect, it conflicts the Framework, policy HC4 of the LP and the SPD, which also seek to safeguard appropriate levels of residential amenity for existing residents. Other considerations 13. In reaching my decision, I am mindful that it could be possible to construct a building of a similar footprint under the provisions of permitted development. Whilst such a building would have a flat roof and therefore might require more Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/18/3217822 3 maintenance, it would not be as tall or as dominant. In any event, the building before me does require planning permission and I have therefore considered it against the relevant policies of the development plan, taking all other material planning considerations into account. 14.The appellant refers to an outbuilding building at a property he previously owned in Moor Lane, Thornton. However, I understand that this building was built under the provisions of permitted development and therefore it is not directly comparable to the scheme and circumstances before me. The appellant also refers to an outbuilding at 21 Harcourt Street Liverpool, but I do not know the precise planning background to that development. Regardless, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits and against its specific context. 15.The appellant asserts that the building would be used, in part, for his partner’s young son to rehabilitate and socialise in following a serious accident. Whilst I sympathise with this position, no compelling evidence has been advanced to persuade me that a more appropriately scaled building could not provide such a facility. 16.The appellant has also suggested that the building was constructed following advice that planning permission was not required and he has expressed disappointment with the manner in which the Council has dealt with this case. However, these are not matters for me to consider. 17. Finally, I am mindful of concerns raised by nearby residents relating to noise and disturbance given that part of the building would be used as a games room, fitted with a small bar. However, planning decisions must be made with a reasonable expectation that occupiers will behave in a considerate manner. Legislation is in place to deal with those who do not. Overall Conclusions 18. I conclude that the outbuilding harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings and it also has an unacceptable impact on the outlook from some neighbouring properties, contrary to the development plan policy and design guidance outlined above. The arguments advanced by the appellant in favour of the development do not outweigh these failings and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR