Appeal 3283336

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of the proposed development that was given in the application form, the nature of the proposal can more clearly be expressed as set out in the Council’s decision notice, as the “removal of existing garage/coal shed and erection of replacement garage with home office above and a self contained annexe to the rear”.

The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

The appeal site is located in a residential area, in the northern part of Hythe, where a variety of dwelling types and styles is to be found. [address] is a fairly busy through route that connects [address] with [address] and [address], sweeping around a hill that has open land at the summit. Houses built around the north-east slope of the hill are reached by [site address] that runs parallel to the busier [address] and at a higher level, Appeal Decision: APP/L2250/D/21/3283336 though the roads come together at the junction with [address] and [address].

At the western end of [site address] , where it also meets [address] and [address], there is a variation in house types. The nearest houses to the junction are substantial detached houses, as are houses in [address], around the corner. By contrast, houses to the east are typically semi-detached pairs, usually set back from the street frontage behind their front gardens.

The existing house at number [site address] [site address] is also a detached house, with some “Tudor” detailing, but with some similarities of scale to the semi-detached houses to the east. Although the house stands on a plot that has a wide frontage, a detached garage and coal shed stands alongside the house itself, taking up much of the width of the plot. This garage building exhibits an “[name]” rectangularity of style but it is a simple building and its loss need not be regretted.

It is now proposed to demolish the garage and coal shed and to build a new outbuilding in its place. The new building would comprise a double garage with a “home office space” above, combined with a single storey “self contained annexe” at the rear.

Policies in the ‘Places and Policies Local Plan’ (which was adopted in September 2020’) are particularly relevant to this appeal. Policy HB1 is a general policy that seeks to achieve “[name]” and which draws attention to a range of design considerations. Policy HB8 provides specific criteria in respect of “Alterations and Extensions to Buildings”, while Policy HB9 does so in relation to “[name]”.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ (which was revised in July 2021) likewise includes the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation.

In this case, the proposed annexe building would be separate from the existing house, creating a distinct element in the streetscene. Its front elevation would, inevitably, be dominated by the garage door, as an ancillary garage to the existing house, and it would have a lower ridge height than the house. Even so, the visual relationship between the two buildings would be tenuous and the new building would have a clearly separate character.

Policy HB8 notes that “the proposed annexe should have a clear dependency in terms of siting and function with the main dwelling”. In some cases, it is especially desirable for annexes to be attached to the host building, so that care can be provided easily. On the other hand, of course, outbuildings may be desirable for a variety of reasons and the impact of any particular proposal needs to be considered on its own merits.

In this case, the appeal site is located in a built-up part of Hythe, on a developed street frontage. The streetscene is softened by the existence of a wide sloping belt of land between [site address] and [address], which provides space for trees and shrubs opposite the houses, while the buildings 2 Appeal Decision: APP/L2250/D/21/3283336 are constructed in traditional styles, with some variety. Nonetheless, the proposed new building would introduce an awkward element into the frontage that would appear as an independent building in its own right, entirely separate from the host building but smaller and out of scale with its neighbours either side and without a visual relationship or clear connection to the host building.

The appeal site includes an under-developed frontage that evidently offers scope for an outbuilding or extension. Nevertheless, the current proposal would create an unsatisfactory intrusion in the streetscene that would rival the host building and would be unsympathetic to it in design terms.

Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) that are aimed at achieving well designed places and that it ought not to be allowed. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.