Appeal 3270157

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a rear extension to the garage at [site address] [site address] , [name], Swindon [postcode] . In accordance with the terms of application S/HOU/19/1378/EMMI, dated 20 November 2020 subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than [site address] years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: the site location plan, the block plan and drawing number 19/084.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The application site consists of a detached house with a double garage and driveway positioned to the front of the dwelling. The site lies within a relatively large plot within a, suburban setting at the end of a Cul de sac with similar properties. Both the existing garage and the host dwelling have pitched roofs.

The proposal consists of a single storey rear extension to the garage, which includes the creation of a gable at the rear and a dormer window to the side Appeal Decision: APP/U3935/D/21/3270157 with a roof terrace over a single storey element. It would also accommodate a home office, on the ground floor and a bedroom within the loft. Although an alteration to the roof design is proposed with this scheme, the footprint would be similar to a previously approved application which also included accommodation in the roof space utilising a large box dormer.

Due to the siting of the garage, the extension would not be readily visible from the front of the dwellings in the cul-de-sac. Although some bulk would be added at the rear, this would not be greatly beyond that of the approved scheme. With the new rear ridge line and gable reflecting the height and form of the existing garage, overall, the extension would appear as a cohesive addition to the building. The side dormer and roof terrace would be set within the roof slope and flat roof element and they would appear as modest additions to the building. Overall, the scale of the outbuilding would still appear as subordinate to the dwelling and not harmful to the character and appearance of the wider area.

Even if the land to the rear was developed in the future, the extended garage, when seen from views from this land, would appear in keeping with the overall character of the area. Regardless of whether the accommodation would be large for occasional use, the development would be acceptable on the key planning merits, in this case its effect on the character and appearance of the area. The lack of justification for the scale of the development would not outweigh the general acceptability of the scheme.

For the reasons outlined above, the development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. It would accord with Policy DE1 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026 Swindon: Planning for our future which seeks development that is appropriate to the existing built character of the area. The proposal would also accord with the [name] and [name] (2011) which seeks to ensure detached buildings are subordinate to the existing dwelling. There would also be no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to achieve good design.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, a condition has been recommended requiring that the development accord with the approved plans, as this provides certainty and precision. A condition requiring the use of materials matching that of the existing building is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development.

A condition to restrict the use of the proposed home office, bathroom and bedroom, to prohibit occupation at any other time than for purposes ancillary to residential use of the main dwelling would not be necessary. The building is part of a single dwelling and so any uses, beyond that incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, would require separate permission

The proposal would accord with the development plan when considered as a whole. Based on the above, and having regard to all matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Appeal Decision: APP/U3935/D/21/3270157

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.