Appeal 3296265

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: i) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook; and, ii) the character and appearance of the area.

The existing pitched roof double garage has its gable end located close to, and facing, the modestly sized rear garden of [address]. A similar arrangement exists on the opposite side of number 21’s garden.

As part of the proposal to extend the garage to the side, its roof would be turned 90 degrees so that it would now slope away from the boundary. However, the benefits of this to number 21 would be negated by the increase in the length of the garage. This would span the majority of the garden boundary, also extending beyond the rear wall of number 21, thereby closing the important gap that currently provides some relief from the effects of enclosure on that side of the garden. Consequently, even when taking into account the sloping roof form, the extended garage would, through its length and height, undoubtedly have a greater overbearing and oppressive effect on the outlook from the rear windows and garden of number 21 than the current garage building, and cause an undue sense of enclosure.

I therefore conclude, on this issue, that the development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook. This is contrary to Policies SD3 and SD8 of the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Local Plan (2019) (the LP), which among other things, seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. It is also contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), where it requires development to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

[site address] is a two-storey detached dwelling located within a modern open plan housing estate. The existing detached double garage is a design found commonly throughout the estate, but other forms of attached and integral garaging exist through the variety in house types.

The appellant highlights another property with a triple garage in a different part of the estate, but I did not observe any such examples in the vicinity of the appeal site. Nonetheless, the garage is located on a spacious corner plot where its enlargement could be comfortably accommodated without appearing cramped, or compromising the open plan character. Nor would it impinge on any front building line. In addition, its design and height would respect the main house and surrounding buildings. Consequently, the garage would not appear as a disproportionate or unduly intrusive element in the street scene.

I therefore conclude, on this issue, that the development would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the area. In this regard, the proposal complies with [name] SD3 and SD8 in so far as they require a high standard of design taking into consideration the context of the surrounding area and that extensions should be in keeping with the property and street scene in terms of style, proportion, and materials.

The development would enable the appellant to carry out his hobby at home, which, in turn, would reduce the number of journeys made for that purpose. However, these matters are far outweighed by the harm I have described and the resultant conflict with the development plan and Framework as a whole.

Although the development would not harm the character or appearance of the area, it would significantly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.