Erection of an outbuilding at the end of the back garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by D Harris-Watkins BA(Hons) PgD MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011077 63 Bougainvillea Drive, Northampton, West Northamptonshire NN3 3XD • 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. Chris Stobart against the decision of West Northamptonshire Council. • The application Ref is 2025/4359/FULL. • The development is described as erection of an outbuilding at the end of the back garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of an outbuilding at the end of the back garden at 63 Bougainvillea Drive, Northampton, West Northamptonshire NN3 3XD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/4359/FULL, and the plans submitted with it: BDR/DWG/001: Page 01 (Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations), BDR/DWG/001: Page 02 (Existing Proposed Site Plans), Unique plan reference: p2f/uk/1334370/1788417 (unnamed location plan dated 3rd November 2025). Preliminary Matters 2. The application form states the development has been completed, and I observed this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. On 17 August 2026, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been significantly amended. As a result, I have not sought further submissions. I have referred to the latest version of the Framework where relevant in this appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of 61 and 65 Bougainvillea Drive, with regard to privacy, outlook and light. Reasons 5. Bougainvillea Drive comprises detached dwellings in tight rows. The properties have reasonably sized rear gardens, and Nos.61, 63 and 65 Bougainvillea Drive’s rear gardens back onto a woodland. Though several of the properties in the row have been extended, none have outbuildings to the rear, such that there are currently no views facing directly towards the rear of the properties. Due to the proximity of the dwellings to their boundaries, and modest height of dividing close boarded fencing, there is an existing mutual level of overlooking between Appeal Decision 6011077 2 neighbouring properties to either side. The outlook of the windows on the rear elevations of the properties face directly onto their gardens framed by close boarded fencing. 6. The appeal development is an outbuilding located at the back of the rear garden of No.63. The building covers nearly the full width of the garden and extends in height above the fenceline on either side. 7. Despite the outbuilding extending above the fencelines, as a result of its siting at the back of the garden and its modest depth, I do not find harm in relation to the outlook of either No.61 or No.65. 8. Due to the siting of the building and its orientation in relation to No.65, the outbuilding has a limited effect of overshadowing to its rear garden, as it is not located between the dwelling and the sun during key daylight hours. The outbuilding results in overshadowing on a section of the garden of No.61 closest to the outbuilding in the late afternoon, however due to the modest height and depth of the building the effect is limited. As a result of the distance between the outbuilding and the neighbouring dwellings there is also no overshadowing to the dwellings themselves. Consequently, the development does not give rise to, or contribute to, an unacceptable level of access to daylight and sunlight for neighbouring residents and occupiers, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. All the windows and doors on the building are on the front elevation facing towards No.63. The top of the windows are higher than the fenceline on either side. The proximity of the outbuilding to No.63 is such that the views from inside the building towards the neighbouring dwellings on either side are at an obtuse angle, and when set back from the windows within the outbuilding the views of the neighbouring properties are restricted even further. Due to the lower height of the fenceline on the side of No.65, it has greater potential to be affected. However, the room to this side of the outbuilding is for storage use which is a low intensity use. The layout of the room, with a single door for access, also restricts the usable space at the front of the room, minimising the likelihood that someone would be located close to the door for a prolonged period. 10. Furthermore, as the use is for a home office/gym and a storage room, these are domestic uses. The same space could be occupied by garden furniture or other domestic paraphernalia that is frequently used where the same views would be afforded back towards the dwellings on either side. Consequently, the development does not result in a materially harmful effect on the occupiers’ privacy, and I find the appeal development is in therefore in accordance with the the Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide: Supplementary Planning Document 2011, in respect of outbuildings effect on neighbouring properties. The matter the outbuilding has not been constructed under the limitations of GPDO1 powers does not mean the effects of the appeal development are harmful. 11. For the reasons above, I find the development has an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 61 and 65 Bougainvillea Drive, with regard to privacy, outlook and light. The development accords with policy Q2 of the Northampton Local Plan Part 2: 2023, which seeks to protect a high standard of living conditions for occupiers. 1 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) Appeal Decision 6011077 3 Other Matters 12. I have taken account of the concerns raised by interested parties, including in relation to biodiversity, character and appearance. The Council have not raised any concerns in relation to these matters and based on the information before me I see no reason to come to any other conclusion. I have also not been directed to any development plan or national policy that requires the appeal development to provide public benefits. 13. The fact the building has been erected without permission is not a reason in itself to dismiss the appeal. Whether the outbuildings meet building regulations is outside of my jurisdiction in determining this appeal, so have not influenced my decision. Concerns have been raised in relation to a dormer window on the appeal property. This does not form part of the current appeal development and whether it falls under the limitations of the GPDO or requires planning permission is a matter for the Council’s enforcement team to resolve. 14. The other properties in the row have varying garden sizes, boundary treatments and relationships with neighbouring properties. Each application and appeal must be determined on its own merits, and the neighbouring properties each have their own site-specific context; therefore, I give little weight to the issue of precedent. 15. Concerns have been raised that the building is used for alternative uses and that the use of the building has resulted in noise and disturbance that has affected a neighbouring occupier’s quality of life. I observed the building in the applied for uses (gym/home office and storage) during my site visit. These uses are incidental uses to the use of the main dwellinghouse. The internal layout and permanence of the construction of the outbuilding is also not a determinative factor of whether the buildings use is incidental or not to the main dwelling. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the uses applied for result in harmful noise and disturbance. I note the Council have not found any harm in relation to these matters either, and on the basis of the evidence before me I have no reason to consider otherwise. Therefore, this consideration of this matter carries little weight. Conditions 16. The Council have provided a list of suggested planning conditions, which I have considered against the six tests outlined in the Framework, and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance. 17. I have not added a condition in relation to obscure glazing as I have found the effect on privacy to be acceptable. Due to the access, siting, scale, layout and level of facilities afforded to the building, which limit its occupation, I am also satisfied a condition restricting its use is not necessary. 18. The Framework outlines development proposals should be assessed on the basis of whether they would be an acceptable use of land, and decision makers should assume that other regulatory regimes will operate effectively, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Any nuisance caused to neighbouring residents is a matter for the Council’s Environmental Health department to consider. External lighting within residential gardens is a common fitting. There are already external lights both on the main dwelling on the appeal site and the neighbouring dwellings’ to either side, facing towards the gardens and woodland. I therefore have not Appeal Decision 6011077 4 found it reasonable or necessary to impose a condition in relation to external lighting. Conclusion 19. Representations were made to the effect that the rights of an adjoining occupier under Article 8 as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 would be violated if the appeal were allowed. I have found that the development does not result in unacceptable harm to the occupiers of neighbouring properties living conditions. Nor does the development conflict with Policy Q2 of the LP2. I am satisfied that a grant of planning permission would not unacceptably interfere with the occupier’s right to a private and family life and home. It is proportionate in the circumstances to allow the appeal. 20. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. D Harris-Watkins INSPECTOR