Erection of a detached double garage (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 April 2019 by Mark Caine BSc (Hons) MTPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C3240/D/19/3223041 Avoncroft, Leonard Street, Oakengates, Telford, TF2 6EU • 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 and Mrs Sue Walls against the decision of Telford and Wrekin Council. • The application Ref TWC/2018/1055, dated 5 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 February 2019. • The development proposed is described as the ‘erection of a detached double garage (retrospective)’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The name of the applicant is given as Mr A Richardson in the original planning application form, but the appellants’ details are specified as Mr and Mrs Sue Walls c/o Alan Richardson in the submitted appeal form. However, an email has been submitted to confirm that Mr and Mrs Sue Walls are the appellants and I have therefore used their names in the banner heading above. 3. The appellants have included a breakdown of the costs and professional fees associated with the planning application and appeal in the appendices of their statement of case. However, no further information has been provided and this does not constitute an application for costs that is subject to a separate decision. 4. The development applied for has already been carried out. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of 8 and 9 Leonard Court, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons 6. The appeal relates to a single storey detached outbuilding that has been constructed to the far end of Avoncroft’s long rear garden area. 7. The appellants measure the internal floorspace of the development to be 36.28 metres² and to have an eaves level that is only approximately 0.3 metres above the existing shared boundary fence with Nos 8 and 9. However I Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3223041 2 saw on my site visit that it is offset from this shared boundary by only around 1 metre, spanning the majority of the width of No 8’s rear garden fence line. It is also readily apparent above this fence as its ridge height is approximately 2 metres taller than it. Furthermore, the rear garden areas of Nos 8 and 9 are only approximately 4 metres in length. At such close quarters to the shared boundary and the small rear garden areas of these properties the mass and bulk of the outbuilding therefore visually dominates and has an oppressive and overbearing effect. 8. Given the length of the garden area, there is consequently a very short separation distance between the outbuilding and the rear ground floor window and glazed patio door of No 8. The size, scale and close proximity of the development therefore also results in an undue sense of enclosure that significantly prejudices the level of outlook from these openings. 9. I have had regard to the appellants’ submitted photographs which indicate that tall mature trees once occupied a similar position to the development. The appellants argue that the detached outbuilding is considerably less intrusive than this tree hedge line. Nonetheless, these trees were felled prior to the construction of the development, and no longer form a part of the local context. 10. It has also been put to me that the height of the BT Exchange building, which is located to the north of the appeal site, has a more overbearing effect on No 8 and 9 than the appeal development. I acknowledge that the BT Exchange building is of substantial size and scale, however it does not directly face the rear elevation of No 8 and is not in such close proximity to the rear garden area of No 9 as the appeal development. As such I do not consider the outlook of these neighbouring properties to be so significantly compromised by this building to justify the appeal development. 11. Whilst I appreciate that there is a window in the side elevation of the outbuilding which directly faces No 8, this is only around 0.45 metres in height and positioned approximately 1.6 metres above the finished floor level of the development. I also noted on my site visit that the boundary fence partially obscures approximately half of the outlook from this window and that this window does not serve a habitable room. All of these factors therefore combine to reduce the harm and I do not consider that any significant amount of overlooking or undue loss of privacy to the occupiers of No’s 8 and 9 occurs. 12. As such I find the development to have a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of 8 and 9 Leonard Court, with particular regard to outlook. In this respect it conflicts with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 (2018). These seek to ensure that, amongst other matters, developments demonstrate that there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Other matters 13. I have had regard to the letter of support from the local resident, and I appreciate that the appellants mistakenly considered the detached outbuilding to constitute permitted development before applying for retrospective planning permission. There is also no firm evidence before me to suggest that the Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3223041 3 development causes additional drainage problems. Nonetheless, these matters do not outweigh or overcome the significant harm that I have identified above. Conclusion 14. Overall, I find that the development does not result in an undue loss of privacy to the residents of 8 and 9 Leonard Court. However, this and all other matters raised, do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified the development to cause to the living conditions of these residents in respect of outlook. 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Caine INSPECTOR