Stand alone single story building in rear garden to provide annex

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by Richard Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011344 2 Tensing Road, Scunthorpe DN16 3DY • 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 Mrs D Kilner against the decision of North Lincolnshire Council. • The application reference is PA/2026/10. • The development proposed is a stand alone single story building in rear garden to provide annex. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. During the course of the appeal a new National Planning Policy Framework was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the format has altered, any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed. I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of 76 Everest Road, with particular regard to outlook; and • the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons Living Conditions 4. The appeal property is an end-terrace dwelling. An existing single garage is situated in its rear garden. The garage is set at an angle along part of the shared boundary with the neighbouring property 76 Everest Road (No.76). The boundary features a fence, with a wooden shed present in the rear garden of No.76. A building forming a block of garages backs onto and forms a part of the side boundary to both the appeal property and No.76. 5. The proposed development includes demolition of the existing garage and erection of a pitched roof annexe. The proposal would abut the full length of the shared boundary with No.76, with a broad pitched roof rising substantially above the existing fence line, shed and garage block. Consequently, the length and height of the annexe, in close proximity to the shared boundary, would introduce excessive Appeal Decision 6011344 2 built mass that would dominate the entirety of that boundary. This would result in an overbearing impact on the rear garden of No.76, harming the outlook of the occupiers of that property. 6. Although the existing garage would be removed to facilitate the proposal, it has a similar height to the adjacent shed and garage block, is angled away from the boundary and is less than half the length of the proposed annexe. Together, these characteristics demonstrate that the built mass of the existing garage is notably smaller and not comparable to the harm that would be generated by the proposal. The existing fence does provide screening between the rear gardens. However, at approximately 1.8m in height, it would sit at just over half the height of the proposed annexe and is therefore insufficient to offset the overbearing effect on the neighbouring garden. 7. The dwelling at No.76 is two storeys in height and is substantially larger in scale than the proposed annexe. However, the Council’s reason for refusal relates to an overbearing effect on the neighbouring property, which includes the garden. Whilst the size of the neighbouring garden is proportionate to the host dwelling, I am not persuaded that it is large enough to satisfactorily diminish the harm identified. 8. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.76, with particular regard to outlook. Conflict therefore arises with Policy DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (2003) (NLLP). This policy supports development of outbuildings providing that they do not unreasonably reduce sunlight, or daylight, or result in overshadowing, overbearing or loss of privacy. Policy DS1 of the NLLP does not require an assessment of impacts on living conditions in respect of outlook. As such, I have not found conflict with this policy in respect of this main issue. Character and appearance 9. The appeal proposal would be situated within the rear garden of the appeal property. The adjacent garage block is situated at the corner between Tensing Road and Everest Road, screening the garden from the street scene. The area is relatively flat and is predominantly comprised of residential dwellings. It therefore has a domestic character and appearance which, amongst other things, is defined by the variation in the size, roof layout and materials to the outbuildings situated adjacent to these dwellings. 10. As previously established, the proposal would be significantly taller than the fences and outbuildings which surround it. Its roof ridge would therefore be visible from vantage points on Tensing Road and Everest Road. However, the setback location of the proposal in a rear garden, combined with the screening afforded by the garage block and flat topography of the area, would lessen the prominence of the proposal in the street scene, ensuring it would remain visually subordinate to the main dwelling. It would also be viewed contextually in an area with a wide variety of outbuildings, further limiting the potential for visual harm. 11. In considering the above, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. As such, the proposal accords with Policies DS1 and DS5 of the NLLP and Policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). These policies, amongst other things, seek development that should reflect Appeal Decision 6011344 3 or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the immediate area, by being sympathetic in design, scale and materials whilst also appropriate for its context. Other Considerations 12. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 13. In this instance, the appeal is made to provide additional ground floor living accommodation to allow the appellant to provide care and support for a close relative whilst residing as a single family unit. I have no reasons to doubt that the additional space of the extension would be advantageous to the appellant and her family in addressing their personal circumstances. However, the evidence does not indicate that these circumstances are only capable of being addressed by an extension of this size and position. Thus, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the same accommodation and facilities could not be achieved through a less harmful scheme. For these reasons, whilst I accept that the proposal would be of benefit for the appellant and her family through additional space and improved living conditions, these are personal circumstances weighing modestly in favour of the appeal. 14. The appellant has indicated that, through a certificate of lawfulness, they may seek to provide alternative ancillary accommodation to enable the installation of a caravan compliant lodge. However, as there are no specific details relating to such a proposal, it is unclear whether it could be found to be lawful under the planning acts. Moreover, the intent to produce a certificate of lawfulness does not provide the certainty necessary to satisfy me that such a proposal amounts to a realistic fallback position. It therefore attracts limited weight for decision-making purposes. 15. I have also been referred by the appellant to a planning permission for an annexe at 67 Manor Road, Bottesford, Scunthorpe (reference PA/2026/542). The annexe in that instance was proposed to be set in from surrounding boundaries and to be situated within a much larger garden. It therefore has a different relationship to neighbouring properties and is not comparable to the case before me. As such, it does not alter my findings on the appeal scheme, which I have considered on its own merits. Conclusion 16. For the reasons set out, the appeal scheme results in conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. I afford significant weight to this conflict. 17. The proposal would provide additional accommodation for the care needs of an individual, albeit it would not be a separate unit and in the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate that it would be necessary to address a specific need, it would only partly comply with Policy HO7 of the Framework. I therefore attach limited weight to this benefit. 18. Set against this, the scale and position of the proposal would cause harm to a neighbour’s living conditions and so fail to respond to its context, in conflict with Policy DP3(1) of the Framework. No clear justification has been provided for the Appeal Decision 6011344 4 location and design of the proposal, and thus Policy DP3(3) indicates that proposals should be refused in this circumstance. 19. Overall, I find the benefits of the proposal, taken cumulatively, would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the National Decision Making Policies of the Framework. Consequently, Policy S4(1) does not indicate that permission should be forthcoming. 20. In respect of the PSED, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aims of ensuring that the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property can be reasonably safeguarded. Furthermore, the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering of the human rights of the appellant and her family. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the personal circumstances advanced in this case, I conclude that these are not matters which outweigh the harm, which would be permanent, caused by the appeal scheme. 21. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Richard Gilbert INSPECTOR