Retrospective alterations and extensions to permitted outbuilding (Ref 25/00545/DOM)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 March 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004948 Cornerways, Charlmead, East Wittering PO20 8DN • 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 Fabrina Cannon against the decision of Chichester District Council. • The application Ref is EWB/25/02764/DOM. • The development is described as retrospective alterations and extensions to permitted outbuilding (Ref 25/00545/DOM). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application forms state that at the time of the application submission, the development works had commenced but not been completed. Although both the Council and the Appellant have referred to a retrospective development, the outbuilding did not appear to be complete at the time of my site visit, both in terms of the elevational finishes and fenestration. As the proposed development was not complete at the time the application was submitted, I am required to consider the scheme as a proposed development, based on the submitted plans as determined by the Council. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached bungalow on a modest sized plot on the west side of Charlmead and within a predominantly residential area comprising a mix of properties on generally modest sized plots. The residential dwellings are mostly well spaced and within verdant plots which together with the deep grass verges and open grassed areas contribute to the verdant character and appearance of the local area. 5. The proposed development would site an outbuilding in the north-eastern part of the site, sited forward and to the side of the existing dwelling. The main part of the building would, on the basis of the submitted plans, measure some 6.19m at the front with a depth of some 4.22m. There would be an additional element set back at the side closest to the house, giving an overall length at the rear of some 8.57m. Appeal Decision 6004948 2 There would be an attached store on the eastern side. The Council has assessed that the overall height of the flat roof structure would be some 2.6 m. 6. There are a number of examples in the local vicinity of modest outbuildings to the front of properties and visible in the street scene. Planning permission was granted by the Council for an outbuilding at the appeal site under the Ref: 25/00545/DOM and the Appellant has provided information including plans of the permitted scheme. This permitted outbuilding of modest dimensions would also have been sited at the front of the appeal dwelling in the north-eastern corner of the site. There would therefore be no objection in principle to an outbuilding at the front of the site, and the Council has not raised an objection in this regard. 7. However, given its overall dimensions, the proposed outbuilding the subject of this appeal would be much more substantial in terms of scale and massing, compared with the permitted outbuilding, under the Council’s Ref: 25/00545/DOM. There would be very limited spacing between the proposed outbuilding and the main dwelling as well as to the site boundaries. Although its overall height would be acceptable in relation to the main house, and would, on the basis of the information provided by the Council, be of a similar height to the approved outbuilding, the footprint, scale and massing of the proposal the subject of this appeal would result in it appearing overly large in relation to the main dwelling, and cramped within the modest sized plot. This would detract from the character and appearance of the existing building. 8. Although partly screened by existing hedging, there would be views of the outbuilding when approaching along Charlmead from the south-west. The outbuilding would appear overly large and out of scale with the modest proportions of the existing bungalow and plot and cramped within the modest plot size. Given its scale and massing, it would therefore also be overly prominent in street scene views and harmful to the character and appearance of the local area. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not respect but would harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area. This would conflict with Policies P2 and P7 of the Chichester Local Plan 2012-2039 (2025) and the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the local context. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L J Evans INSPECTOR