Garden outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 January 2026 by Mark Caine BSc (Hons) MTPL MRTPI LSRA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001606 25 Home Close, Harlow, Essex CM20 3PB • 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 Kaywan Anwar against the decision of Harlow District Council. • The application Ref is HW/HSE/25/00306. • The development proposed is a garden outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. At the time of my visit the southern end of the site had been cleared, and a concrete base had been laid. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that my determination of the appeal is based on the drawings submitted with the original application. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including trees and green infrastructure. Reasons 4. The appeal relates to the long rear garden area of 25 Home Close, which is a two storey mid terrace property. The northern side of the Home Close cul-de-sac is characterised by similar terrace properties that have long rear gardens, with some single storey detached outbuildings. Visible strips of landscaping that include highway grass verges, shrubs and trees combine with several other large mature trees, that are growing in rear garden areas, to present a soft edge to the built environment. These positively contribute to the mature landscaped character of this side and end of Home Close. 5. The proposed building would be of a single storey height, have a traditional double pitch roof and be constructed in materials consistent with many domestic small scale structures. It would also be sited approximately 2 metres away from the garden’s rear boundary fence, and well away from No 25. These factors would ensure that the proposal would appear subordinate to the main dwelling. 6. I also appreciate that there are other single storey detached outbuildings on the same side of Home Close as the appeal site. However, the proposal would be considerably larger than these and positioned away from them in a relatively exposed and prominent position to the eastern end of the cul-de-sac. Appeal Decision 6001606 2 These factors, along with the size, scale and bulk of the proposed development would introduce an obvious, dominant, visually jarring and conspicuous feature into the street scene. This impact would be compounded by its elevated position, and raised concrete base, thereby drawing the eye, and further accentuating its visual prominence along Home Close. 7. My site observations also confirmed that the proposed garage would be in proximity to mature trees that are growing in the back garden area of No.26 and on the adjacent grass verge. I have been given insufficient details to show how these trees’ roots would be adequately protected to ensure that they would not be seriously harmed. Although I have had regard to the appellants’ photographs in this respect, they are inconclusive, and the onus falls principally on an appellant to substantiate their case in this regard. In the absence of this information, including site investigation works to identify the tree roots, I cannot be certain that the siting of the proposed development would not harm the future health of these mature trees. 8. The appellant’s frustration regarding the lack of communication about the requirement for the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment at planning application stage is noted. However, the appellant has had the opportunity to provide this with the appeal submission and has chosen not to do so. 9. As such, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would provide adequate safeguarding of the nearby mature trees. Whilst I recognise that these trees have not been protected by a Tree Preservation Order, they have good visual amenity value, and their potential loss would erode and give rise to considerable harm to the mature landscaped character and appearance of the locality. 10. Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with Policies PL1, PL7, PL8 and WE1 of the Harlow Local Development Plan (December 2020). These seek, amongst other things, to achieve high standards of design and to ensure that trees and green infrastructure are protected and enhanced. Conclusion 11. The proposed development consequently conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that warrant taking a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. Mark Caine INSPECTOR