Erection of wooden summerhouse in rear garden for primary use as a playroom, sitting on a wooden decking base

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 February 2019 by Matthew Woodward BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Sta te Decision date: Friday, 12 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/D/18/3219070 27 Park Way, Castleford, WF10 1BU • 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 Jonathan Wadey against the decision of City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. • The application Ref 18/02219/FUL, dated 6 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 November 2018. • The development proposed is erection of wooden summerhouse in rear garden for primary use as a playroom, sitting on a wooden decking base. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The summerhouse and decking have already been erected. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers in terms of outlook and privacy. Reasons 4. The appeal property, 27 Park Way (No 27), is a semi-detached dwelling adjoining 25 Park Way (No 25). The summerhouse is positioned towards the end of the rear garden and includes a window and door facing the appeal dwelling. It sits on a timber deck which protrudes a short distance beyond the front of the summerhouse. 5. I note the Council’s concern in respect of loss of privacy to the occupiers of No 25. However, the window and door associated with the summerhouse are set in from the party boundary and face towards the appeal dwelling as opposed to the rear of No 25. Although there is an oblique line of sight to the ground floor windows of No 25, the distance to this dwelling and intervening boundary treatment ensures that there is no significant loss of privacy to its occupiers, particular given the likely intended use of the summerhouse and its likely frequency of use. Having regard to the above I find that harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 25 does not result from the summerhouse. 6. However, the summerhouse is a large structure within this modest rear garden. Although set off the party boundary, it is located close to it. It is significantly taller than the boundary fencing and appears as a dominant, intrusive feature Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/18/3219070 2 within this rear garden environment. When viewed from the patio doors and small patio area associated with No 25, the building has an appreciable mass due to its form and scale. It is a jarring intrusion into the outlook from the rear windows and doors of this property, and its garden, and appears oppressive and overpowering. 7. I conclude therefore that the development causes significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 25 Park Way in terms of loss of outlook. It is likely that the rear rooms and garden to this property are less pleasant to use as a result of the development. The development conflicts with Policies D9 and D10 of the Wakefield Local Development Framework Development Policies Document 2009 which require, amongst other matters, that development retains space about the dwelling so as not to result in significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents. The development also conflicts with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires decisions to achieve well designed places by considering a number of factors, including to ensure that a high standard of amenity for existing and future users is provided. There is conflict with the Wakefield Residential Design Guide – Guidance for Householders – Supplementary Planning Document 2019 which requires that development avoids overbearing impacts on adjacent properties and amenity areas. Other Matters 8. I understand from the appellant’s evidence that the development provides additional space for a young family member with a specific lifelong condition and associated educational needs. Whilst I have given the appellant’s personal circumstances careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is also probable that the development will remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be material. For these reasons, I therefore find that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. 9. The appellant claims that the development would otherwise have been permitted development had these rights not been removed from the property. Be that as it may, there is no dispute between the parties that the development did require planning permission. Therefore, this consideration has had no bearing upon my decision. I have considered other observations made by the appellant, including claims that the Council’s officer report was contradictory, and that the application was not assessed objectively. However, I have assessed the appeal on its planning merits and for the reasons identified, I find unacceptable harm to the living conditions of adjacent occupiers. Conclusion 10. I therefore conclude that, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. Matthew Woodward INSPECTOR