Appeal 3291265

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the streetscene and locality.

The appeal concerns a detached dwelling located at the end of a line of properties with open countryside beyond the hedge to the south-east side. As is the case at the appeal site, these dwellings are characteristically set back from the road with a fairly consistent and well defined building line. There is a general absence of buildings within these front garden areas that gives the streetscene a pleasant sense of openness and consistency. The new garage would intrude into this area beyond the established building line, abruptly contrasting with the pattern of development in the vicinity.

There are hedges along the front of the site and to the side. The garage would be located in the corner next to both hedges. However, despite this position, the flat roof and fairly modest single storey height, the building would be seen projecting above the frontage vegetation. Moreover, it would be seen in views across the adjacent front gardens to the north-west when approaching the site from this direction. Its presence would also be apparent looking through the access into the property.

In any event, the boundary vegetation should not be relied on as it could simply die or be removed by future occupiers and for these reasons a condition would not confer acceptability on the development. In the above circumstances the proposed garage would form an unacceptably disruptive and incongruous feature in the streetscene.

A garage built to the rear of the dwelling would not have the space to enable vehicular access through the front of the property. However, the construction of the new garage would be achieved in this instance at the unacceptable expense of the quality of the built environment.

For the above reasons, it is concluded that the character and appearance of the streetscene and locality would be harmed. This adverse impact would occur regardless of the absence of views through the front garden to the open countryside beyond that are prevented by the hedge on this side.

The development would therefore conflict with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan Isle of [name] (including Waste and Minerals) and Development Management Development Plan Document, March 2012, which seeks to secure high quality design that complements the character of the surrounding area.

The development would also be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework. This indicates that decisions should ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area and are sympathetic to local character, which would not be achieved in this case.

There would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. However, mere acceptability in this respect cannot weigh against the harm that I have found and taking account of all other matters raised, it is determined that the appeal fails.