Outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2025 by L Fern BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 MARCH 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/24/3356727 24 Barrow Lane, Hessle, East Riding of Yorkshire HU13 0PL • 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 Ms Jewitt against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 24/02355/PLF. • The development proposed is an outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of No 22 Barrow Lane (No 22), having regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located within a residential area that is characterised by semi- detached and terraced properties with particularly long and narrow rear gardens. Many of the residential plots within the surrounding area benefit from existing outbuildings, mainly of modest scale and massing, which appear subservient to their host dwellings. 4. No 24 Barrow Lane (No 24) is semi-detached and sits adjacent to similar properties either side. It backs onto the side boundary of the very long rear garden of No 33 Salisbury Street. A substantial flat roofed outbuilding already exists at No 24, which sits within the rear garden, just beyond the house itself. The rear garden of No 24 is bounded to the rear and to No 22 by a substantial close boarded fence, and to No 26 Barrow Lane by a tall hedge and the existing flat roofed outbuilding. 5. The proposed development is for the construction of a substantial single storey outbuilding, towards the end of the rear garden of No 24, with hipped roof design and no window openings. Character and Appearance 6. The proposed outbuilding, which is much larger in footprint than its host dwelling, would be an incongruous feature in a residential area characterised by properties Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/24/3356727 2 with smaller outbuildings and large stretches of garden devoid of built development. The addition would dominate a large proportion of the rear garden in width and length, which is already partially occupied by an existing outbuilding, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area when viewed from No 24 and neighbouring properties. 7. For the above reasons, I find significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (2016) (ERLP SD). The policy seeks to ensure that development is of a high-quality design by, amongst other matters, having regard to the specific characteristics of the site’s wider context and the character of the surrounding area, and supporting development that is of an appropriate scale. Living Conditions 8. The proposed outbuilding would sit extremely close to the fence between No 24 and No 22, and its eaves would extend above the height of the already substantial boundary treatment. Furthermore, the ridgeline would be significantly higher. The height of the proposed outbuilding across its substantial length would result in a dominant and enclosing feature that would have an overbearing effect on the occupants of No 22, particularly when spending time in their private rear garden space. 9. For the above reasons, I find significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22 with respect to outlook, contrary to policy ENV1 of the ERLP SD, which seeks to ensure, amongst other matters, that development has regard to the amenity of existing properties. Other Matters 10. I have had regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances. The additional space that would be generated by the proposed outbuilding, to display the appellant’s large collection of memorabilia, would understandably provide mental relief. However, I have found that there is significant harm to both the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the living conditions of the occupants of No 22, which outweigh the personal circumstances put forward. 11. The appellant suggests that construction of an outbuilding of a similar size and scale could be carried out under permitted development. However, no evidence has been provided to support this claim and I am therefore unable to ascertain whether it would offer a realistic or probable prospect, and consequently it does not represent a legitimate fallback position. It is open to the appellant to apply to have the matter determined under sections 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Any such determination would be unaffected by the outcome of this appeal. I have considered the appeal based on what is proposed and its subsequent effects. 12. I note that no objections have been received from neighbours or Hessle Town Council. However, a lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm, and I have determined the proposal on its planning merits. 13. The appellant has referred to a ‘substantial single and two storey structure to the rear garden of No 13 Salisbury Street’ in their appeal submission, as an example of a similar development in the area. Due to the further description provided by the Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/24/3356727 3 appellant it appears that the property in question has been mis-referenced and that the evidence was meant to refer to No 33 Salisbury Street. Nevertheless, no further details of the development have been provided and I was unable to observe the structure on my site visit from either the appeal site or a publicly accessible location. I am therefore unable to consider this evidence as substantive. Conclusion 14. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L Fern INSPECTOR