A GRAPPENHALL resident has won planning permission to retain a “Roman Villa” summerhouse on appeal after Warrington planners rejected the application – after previously approving a similar building.
Neighbours had objected to the previous application, with one stating the development looked like a Roman Villa.
The development at a property on Chester Road involved “retention of a summerhouse in the rear garden (as built) (4.51m wide x 11.76m long, with a height of 5.17m to ridge; 2.79m to eaves)”.
Planning permission had previously been granted by Warrington Borough Council for a summerhouse with the same footprint and siting as the existing summerhouse, but with a ridge height reduced by 0.67m and the chimneys’ height reduced by 1.15m. In the opinion of the inspector, the reduction in heights is unlikely to be significantly discernible from neighbouring properties, particularly due to the building’s roof design, its siting, and the intervening vegetation that completely screens the building when in leaf and whose branches provide a degree of screening when not.
The government appointed Inspector who visited the site in July reviewed the case and determined that: “the development would not adversely harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.”
adding that the “scale of the summerhouse does not appear overly dominant or out of keeping with the scale of other outbuildings.”
As such, the summerhouse: “would not harm the character or appearance of the surrounding area.”
The Inspector found that there was no harm caused to the character and appearance of the Victoria Road/York Drive (Grappenhall) Conservation Area and approved permission.
The inspector stated: “I acknowledge that the summerhouse is substantial in scale, however, it is in keeping with the scale of the existing dwelling and its plot. While other outbuildings in the surrounding area may be smaller in scale, including the appeal site’s existing greenhouse, the summerhouse is comparable in scale to the appeal site’s existing detached two-storey garage. Furthermore, the appeal site’s plot is substantially larger than those of other dwellings in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the scale of the summerhouse does not appear overly dominant or out of keeping with the scale of other outbuildings.
The inspector added: “Glimpses of the summerhouse’s chimneys could be seen from the public realm during my site visit, and I acknowledge that the building could appear more visible during the colder months when vegetation has lost its leaves. However, the summerhouse is sited a significant distance from the surrounding roads and the gaps between the dwellings are limited. Therefore, the building is not highly visible from the surrounding area.
While the Inspector did not award costs, they branded the council’s delays in responding to the applicant as “unhelpful.”
