Appeal 3292671

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow, which is situated within a predominantly residential area. A distinctive characteristic of this section of [address] is that the appeal dwelling and its immediate neighbouring properties have relatively long front gardens with the dwellings well set-back from the road frontage. With the exception of the neighbouring dwelling at number [address] (number 111), these front gardens are free from built development. The outbuildings at number 111 appear to be quite dated and, in my opinion, they should not create a precedent for other development in the area.

The proposal is to construct a detached double garage with a hipped-roof in the front garden. In addition, the proposal includes amendments to the driveway to enable vehicles to turn within the site and leave the property in a forward direction.

Policies 2 and 3 of the adopted South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019 (LP) require (amongst other things) proposals to contribute to sustainable development by having regard to the character of the area and the quality of the design. Policy 3 states that design which is inappropriate to the local area “will not be accepted.”

I accept that the proposed garage would not be visible when approaching the site from the west, because of intervening trees and other vegetation. However, it would be prominent when viewed from the front and when approaching from the east. Because of its position and overall size, I consider that the proposal would appear incongruous and at odds with the open character of the existing front garden and with the general pattern of built development along this section of the road. In my opinion, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the streetscene and it would conflict with Policies 2 and 3 of the LP, as referred to above.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of other garages in front garden in the area. Some of these are some distance from the appeal site and I am not persuaded that they act as a precedent for this appeal.

However, I did view the existing detached garage at the front of number [address], which is relatively close to the appeal site. I acknowledge that this is also prominent in the streetscene, but its position at the end of this part of [address], with access onto [address], means that its visual and physical relationship with adjoining properties and the streetscene is not comparable to the appeal property. Likewise, the example at ‘Sarafand’ which is also on [address] is different, because it is at the end of the row of dwellings and, in that regard, it’s visual relationship with the neighbouring open frontages is not comparable to the appeal proposal.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.