Summerhouse
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 15 July 2024
by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 08 August 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/D/24/3345690
41 Buckthorne Road, Normanton, Wakefield WF6 2FH
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Craig Morewood against the decision of Wakefield Council.
• The application reference is 24/00165/FUL.
• The development proposed is a summerhouse.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2 The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area;
and the effect on the living conditions of the residents of 30 Oak Way, 2 Oak
Mews and 39 Normanton Road with regard to outlook and light.
Reasons
3. The building has already been erected. Although the council’s concerns refer to
the impact on 30 Oak Way, other concerns have been raised by third parties. I
have included as main issues, the impact on the residents of the other
immediately adjoining properties, 2 Oak Mews and 39 Normanton Road;
together with the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
4. The design and materials of this building are not uncommon within rear
gardens. However, this building is significantly higher than the surrounding
high garden fences. As a result, it is clearly evident from Oak Way, between 2
Oak Mews and 30 Oak Way. Although less prominent, it also stands out, above
the high fences to the rear of the Oak Mews properties, when viewed from the
footpath that runs parallel with Redruth Drive. Due to its height, it detracts
from the character and appearance of this area.
5. The gardens of these properties are of only modest in size and the structure
comes close to the boundaries with its three immediate neighbours. It is
extremely prominent when in the gardens of these properties due to its
considerable height above the high boundary fences. It represents an intrusive
and overbearing feature that is harmful to the living conditions of the
neighbouring residents due to the loss of outlook from their rear gardens. It is
Appeal Decision: APP/X4725/D/24/3345690
2
also very close to the living accommodation to the rear of 30 Oak Way and
reduces the outlook from the rear accommodation within that property.
6. Although shading has been raised as a concern by the council, I am not
satisfied that the reduction in direct sunlight would be such that living
conditions would be unacceptably harmed.
7. The development is contrary to policies LP56(c&n) and LP57(a) of the
Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 (2024) as these require that development
should not be overbearing; and should make a positive contribution to the
environment and amenity of its locality. There is also conflict with the
Wakefield District Residential Design Guide: Supplementary Planning Document
2018 as it fails to respect neighbouring developments. It also conflicts with the
National Planning Policy Framework 2023 as it does not result in a high
standard of amenity for neighbouring residents and detracts from the overall
quality of the area.
8. I have had regard to the letter from the neighbouring resident, submitted by
the appellant, which does not raise issues regarding the building but raises
concerns about previous submissions to the council. I am also mindful of the
appellant’s submissions and accept that there would be no unacceptable loss of
privacy or sunlight. However, I am not satisfied that there are any matters that
are sufficient to outweigh my concern that the building detracts from the
character and appearance of the area and reduces outlook from neighbouring
properties. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
Peter Eggleton
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.