Appeal 3293150

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single attached garage to the western side of the approved 2 bedroom chalet bungalow currently being constructed at Coromandel, [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application EWB/21/03313/DOM, dated 12 November 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

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

The bungalow currently under construction was granted planning permission on appeal1. The approved plans show the site for the proposed garage being used for car parking. The flat-roofed garage would be set alongside the bungalow under construction, and clear of the rear boundary of the plot. The concrete garage currently seen on the site would be demolished and removed.

The Council’s assessment of the proposal contained in the officer report is as follows: ‘The plot is constrained in size particularly at the sides of the dwelling. The infilling of the area between the western side of the dwelling and the boundary would result in cramped overdevelopment of the width of the plot. This would result in a negative impact on the visual amenity of the area and the street scene. The proposal by reason of its size and siting would not be acceptable having regard to 1 APP/L3815/W/20/3260778 dated 18 February 2021 the existing property and would cause significant harm or detriment to the wider area....’

I do not share this view of the proposal. [site address] is a residential street containing a variety of house types. Development in the vicinity of the appeal site is compact with many buildings built close to their side boundaries.

Views of the garage from the west would be effectively screened by fencing, vegetation and the railway carriage recently granted permission2 by the Council, which stands proud of the front elevation of the adjacent property, Neska. From the east, views of the garage would be largely curtailed by the bulk of the adjacent property, The Boathouse, and the appeal site’s bungalow, when completed. From front-on, the garage would not look dissimilar in its relationship with other buildings to the many other examples of similar development in the locality referred to by the appellant.

The plot is relatively small, but the garage, particularly since it replaced another, and would be largely well-screened by extant development, would stand unobtrusively within the street scene.

I therefore conclude that the proposed garage would sit comfortably within its visual and spatial context. Accordingly, I find no conflict with those provisions of policies 2 and 33 of the Chichester Local Plan directed to ensure that new development is designed appropriately for its surroundings. Nor do I consider that the proposal conflicts with those provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework referred to by the Council.

In the interests of certainty, a condition is imposed to ensure that the development is built in accordance with the approved plans. As to materials of construction, these are described in the planning application form, and are acceptable. I shall also impose a varied edition of the additional condition suggested by the Council in respect of the future use of the garage, for the same reason as provided by the Council. Some flexibility is required so as to allow, for example, cycle storage and garden tools and equipment.

In the interests of visual amenity and to avoid the impression of an overdeveloped site, I shall also impose a condition requiring the existing garage to be demolished at an appropriate time.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations, and I note that neither the Parish Council nor the highway Authority objected. No other matter raised outweighs those considerations which led me to my