Garden room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009916 10 Thimbleby Close, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough, TS7 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 Mr Gary Crowther against the decision of Middlesbrough Council. • The application Ref is 25/0531/FUL. • The development proposed is a garden room. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garden room at 10 Thimbleby Close, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough, TS7 0PL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0531/FUL and the plans submitted with it. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development is taken from the application form, which states in full “seeking planning permission for a garden room that was constructed in February 2020 by the previous owner of the house.” 3. The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place. 4. In its decision notice, the Council referred to a policy in its emerging plan. I note that at the time of the Council’s decision and at the time of this appeal decision, the policy referred to was not an adopted development plan policy. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the long-term impact on a protected tree. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling situated within a modern housing estate. The surrounding area is characterised by the presence of detached dwellings with garages, similar in design and constructed from a similar palette of red brick, grey and red roof tiles and white render materials. 7. Dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind small garden areas and have larger gardens to the rear. The presence of small areas of green space, planting, hedges and glimpses through to gardens and further afield, to woodland, provides for a pleasant sense of greenery and spaciousness. Appeal Decision 6009916 2 8. The appeal dwelling is set back from Thimbleby Close behind a small garden and parking area and faces out towards an area of green space planted with trees and hedge plants. It has a spacious garden to the rear, to the side of which and at the end of which, are outbuildings. Adjacent to the outbuilding at the end of the garden is a mature oak tree. The oak tree appears distinctive in its immediate surroundings, in the absence of other such mature trees in nearby gardens and it makes a positive contribution to the area’s green qualities. 9. The building adjacent to the oak tree is described as a summerhouse. It is low in height, has been reduced in width and appears as a lightweight, single-storey, flat- roofed structure. The Council considers the structure to be a minor addition, subservient to the host property, inconspicuous and of appropriate scale to the host dwelling. 10. The appellant states that the summerhouse is supported on stilts rather than continuous foundations and that there has been no significant excavation associated with its installation; and that as such, ground disturbance has been minimal. 11. On inspection of the site, it appears to me that this is indeed the case and I am mindful that there is no substantive evidence before me to the contrary. 12. During the course of my site visit, I also observed there to be what might be described as more invasive works than the placing of the summerhouse, including a deep excavation with concrete inserts, to provide for a sunken trampoline. I observed that, at the time of my site visit, this was in the process of being removed as part of garden reinstatement works. 13. I also observed that ground disturbance and compaction had taken place as a result of surfacing much of the rear garden with astro-turf. The appellant has stated an intention to remove this astro-turf and reinstate the garden to a more natural state. 14. Noting the above, whilst the summerhouse is located close to the mature oak tree, it does not appear unduly intrusive, and it does not detract from the appearance of the area. 15. The Council’s officer’s report refers to an arboricultural assessment which assessed the condition of the oak tree. Notably, the Council states that the assessment found no discernible sign of any decline in the physiological or structural condition of the oak tree. 16. The Council refers to the assessment stating that stone-flagging and artificial grass will have reduced water infiltration to the tree’s roots; and that works associated with the sunken trampoline will have severed roots and acted as a root barrier. 17. The Council’s officer’s report goes on to include an assertion from the assessment that “the garden room cannot be retained in its current position.” The Council does not provide any substantive evidence in support of this assertion. Rather, the Council’s own evidence states that there has been no discernible decline in the oak tree’s condition. In this regard, I am mindful that the summerhouse has been in situ above what is identified in the assessment as a root protection area for many years. The only evidence presented by the Council in respect of there having been possible harm to the oak tree relates to other areas of the garden. Appeal Decision 6009916 3 18. Given all of the above, there is nothing to lead me to determine that the summerhouse harms local character or that it will have a long-term impact on a protected tree. Consequently, I find that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to Policies CS5 and DC1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful. N McGurk INSPECTOR