Appeal 3302039

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form simply describes the proposed development as an ‘annex’ and the Council’s decision notice as ‘proposed annex over existing garage’. There is nothing before me to further clarify the intended use of the development which could, by this description, be as habitable accommodation additional to that found in the host dwelling and I have determined this application on that basis.

I have used the name that appears on the application form and the appeal form which differs from that on the Council’s decision letter.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (Conservation Area) and • living conditions for users of the development

The appeal site is an existing garage structure within the curtilage of [site address] , [site address] (No.3), which is a small settlement in the Wiltshire countryside characterised, in regard to the Conservation Area, by loosely arranged groups of largely1 traditional dwellings and an open rural setting. The building which is the subject of this appeal is a double garage in generally poor 1 There are more recent developments including a school in the vicinity. condition. Although separated from the host dwelling by The Butts, a rural lane, the appeal site is defined on its northern side by a ditch and hedgerow.

Although it is possible that the existing garage has been previously altered or rebuilt in the past, its appearance suggests a construction which has no traditional elements or origins. There are some signs of structural movement in the walls and the roofing material is a corrugated sheet material. [name] consider the garage is a minor detractor from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area such that an appropriately designed replacement could preserve or enhance the character and appearance.

The proposal would raise the height of the existing building in order to provide accommodation in the roof space, accessed by an external staircase. The character of No.3 and neighbouring properties, are, by their appearance, form, and materials used, readily understood as dwellings, in some cases with ancillary structures, that sit within a well-defined curtilage. Such development patterns provide a settled appreciation of a historic settlement pattern that contributes positively to the character of the Conservation Area.

Notwithstanding the submitted plans and declaration as to the legal relationship between No.3 and the garage, whilst the subject building can be understood as a garage, an ancillary building to a residential use, due to its prominent location outwith the defined curtilage of the host dwelling, it appears incongruous in the street scene. What is proposed would increase this incongruity through significant additional height and a built form unrelieved by openings or other architectural consideration. The positioning of doors and their height relative to the proposed eaves height would increase the sense of the building being an ill-considered insertion in a prominent street-side location. The access stairs are located discretely such that the resulting development would appear as a poorly proportioned garage structure rather than a garage with additional accommodation above. Even if the proposal were provided with fenestration this would not, in my opinion, mitigate the effect of its bulk and mass in this prominent location.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires decision-takers to have regard to the effect of development upon the conservation areas and the desirability that such development should ‘preserve or enhance’ character and appearance, a matter to which the Courts have attached considerable importance and weight. Notwithstanding its current neglected state and non-traditional use of materials, the building as proposed would by virtue of its disproportionate height and poor architectural treatment, fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This would amount to less than substantial harm in which regard the appellant has advanced no outweighing considerations of public interest. To that harm is added the conflict with Policies 57 and 58 of the [name] 2015 (WCS) which seek to ensure high quality design, retain local distinctiveness and protect the historic environment. Living Conditions 10.The submitted plans do not indicate how the accommodation provided might be used other than by the description on the application form as an ‘annex’. In such circumstances use as sleeping or other general living accommodation cannot be ruled out in the way a description of use as a store or other wholly ancillary use might be limited by condition. On that basis the appeal falls to be determined as to the potential for use of the additional space as living accommodation. The space proposed would provide a poor-quality environment for any user, notwithstanding the room would be additional to that of the main dwelling. I consider the lack of access to daylight or usual ventilation arrangements from windows or rooflights for such accommodation would conflict with Policy 57 of the WCS where that policy seeks to ensure appropriate levels of amenity are provided within development.