Appeal 3291280

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the demolition of the existing garage to construct a new detached garage with living accommodation above. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the extensions and alterations to existing dwelling including a first floor extension to create additional living space and the erection of a new front boundary wall and planning permission is granted at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2021/1583, dated 14 October 2021, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:1648 101; 1648 102 and 1648 103 (insofar as they relate to the extensions and alterations to the dwelling and the front boundary wall).

The materials to be used in the construction of the boundary wall hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, all rooflights in the rear elevation shall be no lower than 1.7 metres from the floor level of the room in which they are fitted.

The appeal planning application includes works to the existing dwelling as well as the proposed garage with living accommodation and the front boundary wall. [name] understand it, the Council have already granted planning permission for the extension works to the dwelling1 and they have indicated that the appeal proposal is identical in that respect. At my site visit I saw that works to the existing property had commenced.

The Councils reason for refusal is specific to the garage and wall aspects on the application and I have therefore concentrated my decision on these matters.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located in a residential area with a mixture of differing styles of property and boundary treatments. At my site visit I also observed the entrance wall feature and garage blocks with accommodation above in [address].

The appeal site itself contains the existing bungalow which is currently being enlarged with an additional storey as well as a blockwork mono-pitched garage to the front of the dwelling. There is also a timber boundary fence with concrete posts along the road frontage.

The appeal proposal would result in the replacement of the existing garage with a much taller and bulkier building, particularly given the steep pitch of the roof and the inclusion of dormer windows. Whilst this roof pitch would reflect that of the existing dwelling (as altered), and the surrounding buildings, it would nevertheless result in a building which would unacceptably dominate this part of the streetscene. This is particularly the case given its siting close to the front boundary with the highway and its overall height, massing and bulk.

In coming to that view, I acknowledge the presence of other similar sized garages on [address]. However, none of these are as prominent as the proposal before me. I also acknowledge that the removal of the existing garage would result in a positive impact on the overall character and appearance of the area. However, this is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

Consequently, I conclude that the garage and annex would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (2017); Policy BNE1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) and the [name] Planning Document (2017) which amongst other matters seek to ensure that new development is well designed, visually attractive and respects the townscape and is in scale and character with the existing property.

Turning to the boundary wall, this would have 1.8 metre high brick piers with 1 metre high brickwork between them. There would also be timber panelling between the piers which would be lower than the piers themselves. The boundary treatment would therefore be higher than the existing timber fencing.

To my mind, the overall visual impact of the boundary treatment would not have an adverse impact on the streetscene, particularly when the existing boundary treatment, and the walling at [address], is taken into account. Whilst it would be greater in height to the boundary treatment opposite, and 1 [name]/[address] where it exists, it would not be excessive in height. In that sense, I find this boundary treatment acceptable.

I therefore find that the extension and alterations works to the existing dwelling, together with the proposed boundary wall, would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policy H27 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (2017); Policy BNE1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) and the [name] Planning Document (2017).

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions in their appeal questionnaire that it considers would be appropriate. Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to matching materials is also necessary (in respect of the wall).

In addition to these conditions, I am conscious of the conditions imposed on the previous planning permission which included details of materials and the height of the rooflights on the altered dwelling.

In respect of materials, I consider that such a condition is unnecessary as the application form specifies the details of the external materials. However, I consider that the condition in relation to the height of the rooflights in the rear elevation is necessary to protect the privacy of the occupiers of the dwellings to the rear.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.