Conversion of existing attached garage to home office and workspace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 June 2026 by H Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008270 14 Woodrow Avenue, Middlesbrough TS7 8EZ • 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 Miss Zena Mahmoud against the decision of Middlesbrough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0045/FUL. • The development is conversion of existing attached garage to home office and workspace. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of existing attached garage to home office and workspace at 14 Woodrow Avenue, Middlesbrough TS7 8EZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/0045/FUL, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted is as shown and identified on the following approved plans: Z25.45(9-)1 Z25.45(9-)2 Z25.45(00)2 Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Miss Zena Mahmoud against Middlesbrough Council. This is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. On site, a garage conversion has already taken place, and the Council determined the planning application on a retrospective basis. I have treated the appeal in the same way. 4. The Council is reviewing its local plan, and the evidence before me sets out that a publication version of it (the Emerging Plan) was approved by the Council in March 2025. I have been provided with a couple of the Emerging Plan’s policies. However, I have otherwise limited information before me in respect of the Emerging Plan, including the precise stage of its preparation and the level of unresolved objection that there may be to it. In such circumstances it seems to me that the content of the Emerging Plan could be the subject of change and, overall, it is a matter of limited weight in my decision. As necessary, I refer to the Emerging Plan’s policies elsewhere in my decision. Appeal Decision 6008270 2 Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • The effects of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • Whether the development provides appropriate living conditions for the occupants of the host property, with particular reference to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The site is situated within a residential area. The area includes many semi- detached houses, but their designs are not all the same – different semi-detached house types are represented. Although some of these semi-detached houses have similarly designed attached garages this is by no means universally the case; others have no garage, differently designed garages, converted garages or other side projections. There are also many bungalows near the site and, because this residential area is a very well-established one, property extensions and alterations are generally commonplace. As a result, the area’s street scenes display variety. 7. During my visit, I also noted that the area’s properties include an array of porch and entrance designs, including those featuring French doors and glazed panel areas. Bay windows are a prevalent feature, containing large expanses of glazing. 8. The host property itself is one of a pair of semi-detached houses. Like many other properties in the area, both feature bay windows and their entrances also include some glazed panels beside their doors. Unlike the host property, the adjoining semi features a first-floor side extension. Consequently, the degree of symmetry exhibited by the pair of houses has already been diminished. Furthermore, a garage positioned alongside the adjoining property, which is not replicated on the host property side, introduces a further element of visual disparity. 9. Since there is already a varied approach to garage provision and side projections in the area, together with some visual imbalance in the pair of semi-detached houses the host property forms a part of, the loss of the garage has not resulted in a harmfully anomalous effect. Whilst the incorporation of French doors and glazed panels means that the front elevation of the converted garage contains a substantial amount of glazing, this remains reflective of, and suitably sympathetic to, the large windows and varied entrance designs prevalent in the area. Principally involving the repurposing of existing ground-floor accommodation and the introduction of new fenestration, the development is also limited in nature. 10. The home office and workspace may comprise of a new form of accommodation for the property but, in general, such accommodation is quite typical in residential areas. There is no substantive evidence before me which gives me reason to conclude that the introduction of the home office and workspace accommodation as part of this development is in any way harmfully out of character with the area. 11. For these reasons, I find that the development is contextually appropriate and complementary to both the host property and its surroundings. Therefore, the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the host property Appeal Decision 6008270 3 and the area are acceptable. Consequently, the development complies with Policies DC1 and CS5 of Middlesbrough’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy (the CS). Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies seek to secure a high standard of design and ensure that developments integrate well into their contexts, adopting visual appearances and layouts of high quality. The development is also compliant with Policies CR2 and CR3 of the Emerging Plan which, similarly, require developments to be of a high quality of design which suitably respond to, and respect, their surroundings. Middlesbrough’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) contains dedicated guidance on householder and domestic developments, some of which is prescriptive in nature. Since the development is contextually appropriate and complementary to both the host property and its surroundings, it complies with the SPD’s guidance in overall terms. Living conditions 12. A defining characteristic of the area is the prevalence of large ground-floor windows, frequently bay windows, and front gardens with an open aspect due to either having no boundary enclosures or modest ones. This characteristic applies to the host property. This prevailing character establishes some potential for neighbours and passers-by to obtain some views into property, but it was evident on my visit that blinds and curtains are generally in place, no doubt partly to maximise privacy. 13. The development's inclusion of a substantial amount of glazing reflects the prevalent arrangement of large front-facing windows within the area. Consequently, the development has not introduced a property arrangement or relationship out of kilter with the subsisting local conditions. Furthermore, although the planning permission would exert no means of control over it, it is nevertheless the case that it would be open to the host property occupants to provide the home office and workspace with blinds or curtains, indeed, during my unaccompanied site visit I noted that some were installed. 14. For these reasons, I conclude that the development has created an arrangement between accommodation and neighbours and passers-by very much akin to that which prevails in the area and, in that context, which maintains an acceptable level of privacy for the host property’s occupants. Beyond the control of any planning permission, this privacy can, by choice, be maximised through the provision of blinds or curtains, a form of mitigation which has already seemingly been deployed. 15. For these reasons, the development provides appropriate living conditions for the occupants of the host property, with particular reference to privacy. Accordingly, the development complies with Policy DC1 of the CS which, amongst its general development principles, seeks to ensure that developments minimise their effects on amenity. Conditions 16. As the development has already taken place, a condition relating to the standard implementation period is unnecessary. However, in the interests of certainty and enforceability, I have imposed a condition which sets out the approved plans. Appeal Decision 6008270 4 Conclusion 17. The development accords with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the condition above. H Jones INSPECTOR