Appeal 3274240

The appeal is dismissed.

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 alterations to the garage on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The site is located to the north east of [site address] and south of [name]. The appeal site consists of a detached dormer bungalow with an existing garage located to the south west corner of the site. In its current form, the garage is a modest building with a low roof height; it appears as clearly ancillary to the host dwelling. The area is rural in character. The garage is the first building located towards the west of this row of dwellings and outbuildings. There is not a consistent building line, however, all the dwellings close to the appeal site are set back from the road. The buildings close to the highway are all modest buildings of a low height. This has resulted in an open character to the front of the houses.

The proposal consists of the conversion of, and alterations to, the existing garage to form a home office on the ground floor and raising the roof to add a first floor to provide space for storage and a playroom. The first-floor extension would be finished with horizontal timber clad walls and a tiled roof.

The height of the proposed alterations to the garage would result in a building that is of a significant height close to the road. This would disrupt the established character of the area where buildings close to the highway have a modest height. This would result in harm to the character and setting of the main dwelling and the character and appearance of the street scene and this part of the settlement.

The ridge line would run north/south to the street and there is landscaping along the side boundary to the west, which together would reduce the impact when viewed from the street on approach from the west. Similar roofing materials to those on the dwelling would be used. However, these factors would not mitigate against the harm caused when viewed head on and on approach from the east. The example provided, whilst a relatively large building, given its location and relationship to the host building is different as it is tucked away at the end of a private road. Therefore, this development does not have the same effect on the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons identified above, the alterations to the garage would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy DM1 of the [name] 2011-2028 which seeks development that does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene. There would also conflict with Policy D6 of the Taunton Deane Adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Plan 2016 (SA&DMP) in so far as it requires buildings with ancillary accommodation to not harm the character of the main dwelling. In addition, there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to achieve good design and reflect the character of the area.

Any lack of conflict with other aspects of Policy D6 of the SA&DMP are neutral matters. As Policy D5 of the SA&DMP deals exclusively with extensions to dwellings, it would not be relevant to an application relating to an outbuilding. However, this does not minimise the conflict with the relevant policies in the development plan or the associated harm.

There would be benefits of having a home office on the ground floor and a playroom/ storage at first floor, however these are private benefits and only relate to a single household. As such they only carry limited weight and do not outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposed development.

Although the existing garage is in a state of significant disrepair, the appeal scheme would not be the only means of rectifying this. The lack of any substantive impacts on biodiversity is a neutral matter in the overall consideration of the appeal. I have taken account of the support for the scheme and lack of objection from the Parish Council; however, I must reach my own view on the main issue in the appeal.

Based on the above, and having regard to all matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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