Office/gym annexe situated at the end of the rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 September 2025 by Rachel Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 October 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000551 32 Thorney Road, Streetly, Walsall B74 3HT  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 Hardeep Singh Tung against the decision of Walsall Council.  The application Ref is 25/0455.  The development proposed is office/gym annexe situated at the end of the rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for office/gym annexe situated at the end of the rear garden at 32 Thorney Road, Streetly, Walsall B74 3HT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0455, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Office/Gym Annexe (Ref Thorney/25-01 Rev A); and Proposed Office/Gym Annexe (Ref Thorney/25- 02 Rev A). 3) The external walls and roof materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the external window to the proposed water closet has been fitted with obscured glazing to Pilkington (or equivalent) privacy level 4. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site is located in an area with a linear pattern of development, with houses on Thorney Road backing on to houses on Chester Road. Gaps between adjacent houses are modest. Consequently, there are very limited views through to rear gardens from either Thorney Road or Chester Road. A footpath adjacent to 34 Thorney Road connects Thorney Road and Chester Road, albeit given the height Appeal Decision 6000551 2 of boundary fences visibility of houses to either side of that path including towards appeal site, are very restricted. 4. Although extending above the garden fencing, the single storey nature of the proposal and the surrounding pattern of development would mean that the extent to which it would be visible from public land would be highly limited. In addition, its simple form with a pitched, tiled roof and comprised of brick walls would be consistent with the materials prevalent in the locality. Furthermore, although it would occupy a reasonably large footprint, the appeal garden is of a sufficient size that it would not appear unduly dominant from neighbouring houses, even taking into account existing extensions to the property. 5. Therefore, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would thus accord with Policies ENV2, ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (February 2011) (Core Strategy), and saved Policies ENV32 and GP2 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (2005) (UDP). These generally seek to ensure proposals achieve good design, having regard to the character of their surroundings. It would also comply with the requirements of Appendix D of Designing Walsall SPD, in respect of achieving design that accords with surrounding character. Living conditions 6. The proposal would extend up to the rear and side garden boundaries of the appeal site, with a setback of only 600mm. In addition, the building’s roof would be visible from neighbouring gardens, extending above the surrounding garden fences. Although found to exceed permitted development rights, the proposed building would have a simple form, comprising a single storey with a plain pitched roof sloping away from the rear garden boundary. Therefore, the scale, form and appearance of the proposal would not appear unduly prominent from nearby houses. 7. Also, it is not unusual for garden buildings to be located close to their rear garden boundary. Furthermore, houses in the vicinity of the appeal site appear to have good sized rear gardens, including those backing on to the appeal site on Chester Road. Consequently, the proposal would not dominate in views from neighbouring houses or unacceptably diminish their ability to enjoy their rear gardens. A condition would be necessary to ensure the side facing window remains obscure glazed, in the interest of privacy of neighbours. 8. Therefore, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Accordingly, it would comply with Policies ENV2, ENV3 of the Core Strategy and Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the UDP, which together generally seek to ensure proposals achieve good design, including avoiding unacceptable effects on neighbours. It would also comply with the requirements of Appendix D of Designing Walsall SPD in respect of separation distances. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition is necessary to list the approved plans and to require the materials match those on the existing dwelling, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6000551 3 10. The Council suggested that a condition would be appropriate to ensure the proposed building remains incidental to the use of the main house. However, as the proposed garden building would only be accessible by going through the main house, independent use of the building would be impractical and therefore highly unlikely. Furthermore, the description of development is sufficiently precise in defining the incidental nature of the proposed use. As such, a condition relating to the nature of the use of the building would not be necessary. Conclusion 11. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be allowed. Rachel Hall INSPECTOR