Appeal 3310382

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raised section of garage roof to include parapet wall and cladding at [site address] , Cosham, Portsmouth, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 22/01286/HOU, dated 26 August 2022, and subject to the conditions listed below.

The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Block Plan (received 02/09/2022) and ‘[name] plan [name]. 09/22 (Date 24-8-22).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building and otherwise be as shown on the approved plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal site is located on the southern side of [address] and occupies a corner site with its side (western) boundary fronting onto [address]. The appeal building comprises a single storey garage and workshop located at the rear, set at 900 to a further single storey garage that also forms part of the appeal site. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and whilst the properties are largely two storeys a number have been extended or contain garages and other outbuildings, some with flat roofs, that are visible within the streetscene, particularly on [address].

Based on the above and my observations on site, I am satisfied that the design, height, scale and form of the proposed extension would be acceptable and would not be incongruous or unduly conspicuous within the streetscene. The proposed increase in height is modest and its flat roof design would integrate reasonably well with the other existing garage on the appeal site. The fact that the appeal building is set back from [address] would also lessen the visual impact of the proposed extension on the streetscene, where it would be viewed in the context of and against the backdrop of the variety of extensions, garages and outbuildings found within the area, a number of which include, as I indicated above, flat roofs, as proposed.

I accept that the proposed extension would be visible from the rear of surrounding properties, but due to the existence of other outbuildings and boundary treatment, and given the distances involved the proposal would not, in my view, be visually prominent or harmful to the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. I also agree with the Appellant that the proposed [name] cladding is a type of material that is commonly found in the area and that its use in this instance, given the local context, would be acceptable. Overall, I am satisfied that the appeal proposal would sit reasonably comfortably on this part of the appeal site. [name] accept that the proposal would result in change, the new extension would not, in my view, result in any significant harm to visual amenities or to the character and appearance of the host property or the streetscene.

Accordingly, for the above reasons, I find that the proposal would not be at variance with the aims and objectives of policy PCS23 of The Portsmouth Plan ([name]) (January 2012) or paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021) (Framework). Both seek, amongst other requirements, to ensure that new development is sympathetic to local character and is appropriate in terms of its scale, appearance and materials.

I have considered the Council’s suggested planning conditions against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance chapter on the use of planning conditions. Conditions requiring compliance with the approved plans and for materials to match existing and otherwise be as shown on the approved plans, are necessary to reflect the details included in the application. However, I am not convinced that a condition that seeks to prevent the garage, as extended, being used for commercial or industrial use is necessary or reasonable. The proposal before me simply seeks planning permission to extend the height of an existing garage/workshop, which is incidental to the use of the host property. Any proposal to use it for commercial or industrial purposes would, on my understanding of the evidence before me, require planning permission as a change of use.

For the reasons given above and having taken all the matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.