Appeal 3306626

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has advised that the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 (WLP) was adopted on 17 October 2022 and replaces the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

I consider the main issue in this case to be the effect of the garage upon the character and appearance of the area, including protected trees.

The appeal site is located on a prominent corner plot position next to the junction of [address] and [address] and is within an existing suburban residential area. It currently functions as a front garden with a drive and car parking to its host property [site address] (No 46) which is a two-storey detached house. The site is bounded by a number of trees, adjacent neighbouring properties, [address] and [address].

The existing character and appearance of the residential properties in the surrounding area is of predominantly similar-sized dwellings that are set back from the road behind front gardens and driveways. The majority of houses along [address] have garages that are integral or adjacent to the main dwelling with driveways and front gardens which give an open and verdant character and appearance. The appeal site occupies a large corner plot and therefore makes a particularly significant contribution to the character of the area.

The proposed garage would sit forward of the building line in front of the host property and therefore appear unduly dominant in the street scene and erode the openness of the area. This harm would be exacerbated by the prominent corner plot location.

The proposed garage would be positioned in close proximity to the shared boundary of No 48 and near three protected trees. The garage would occupy a large area of the front garden of No 46 and even with a pitched roof and materials to match the host property, the size and height of the garage along with its position close to the public highway would combine to make the garage unduly prominent and visually intrusive in the street scene that is predominantly characterised by the open nature of the front gardens. The appellant has offered to introduce further landscaping between the garage and front boundary to soften the appearance of the development from the public domain, but this would take time to establish and in the interim the garage would be prominent and visible.

The pattern of development along [address] is predominantly consistent and uniform in appearance. The appellant has raised to my attention a section of housing between [address] and [address], on the North-east side of [address]. This section of the street scene is more varied in layout to that of the rest of [address]. However, this is a separate and small portion of [address], and No 46 continues the predominant building line that exists on the north-east side of [address].

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of properties on the south-western side of [address] with detached garages. These detached garages benefit from being screened by well-established trees and landscaping. On the whole, they are also not as prominently located as No 46 in its corner plot location. [name] 67 occupies a large corner plot, its detached garage is located behind dense, well-established trees and landscaping that mitigates visible impact on the street scene. Given these differences, the presence of these garages does not justify the appeal scheme.

The appellant has also provided examples of properties on the north-eastern side of [address] that have detached garages or buildings adjacent to [address]. There are two existing detached garages at No 50, one of which is situated in close proximity to and visible from [address] while the other is more set back and screened by trees and soft landscaping. I am not persuaded in the context of the character and appearance of the host building and area that the existing garages at No 50 represent a particularly characteristic, desirable or positive precedent and form of development to follow. Given these differences, the presence of these garages does justify approving the appeal scheme.

The Officer’s report indicates that the trees within the neighbouring garden of No [address] proximity to the proposed garage, so the development could necessitate works within the root protection areas of the trees. Having regard to these works, it cannot be assumed, nor has it been demonstrated that the long-term health and vitality off the trees would be ensured following the construction of the garage, even with the use of piling foundations suggested by the appellant. [address] benefits from being lined on both sides by a large number of mature trees that add to the green character and feel of the area. The proposed garage could cause harm to the trees that add to the distinct character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons, the proposed garage would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and the nature of the proposal is such that I am not convinced that the suggested conditions would mitigate this substantial harm. As such, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies QD6.2, QD6.4, NE9.1 and NE9.2 of the Watford Borough Council Local Plan 2021-2038, and inconsistent with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks well-designed places and retaining existing trees wherever possible.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.