Appeal 3318964

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council has expressed substantive concerns over the reduction in parking provision within the appeal site by one space. Since the determination of the application a plan showing a widening of the driveway to provide the required number of off street spaces has been before the Highways Authority. They have agreed that this would be sufficient to provide the minimum number of spaces required. Whilst a change from the plans considered by the Council, it is a very minor one which does not fundamentally alter the scheme subject of the appeal. My acceptance of the plan would not therefore prejudice the cases of either main or third parties. I have proceeded on this basis. As a result, I consider the matter of off street parking to be acceptable. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is a cul-de-sac of bungalows and two storey dwellings which have similar architectural detailing. Some have garages, which are set back from the front elevation. The cul-de-sac is defined by its open feel, with most houses being set back from the road by driveways and front gardens. While there is no unified building line throughout the cul-de-sac, dwellings are set either parallel, at a right angle or at around 45 degrees to one another, with individual building masses being in one orientation. This lends a pleasant consistency to the street scene which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed garage would project at an angle from the side elevation of the bungalow into the driveway. This would introduce something of an alien feature which would appear dislocated from the bungalow. Despite the appeal site being set behind No 4 when viewed from the entrance of the cul-de-sac, the proposal would bring the building further forward, and therefore appear more prominent in the street scene.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, reducing the quality of its consistency. This would lead to conflict with Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) which seeks to ensure that, amongst other things, all development is of a high design quality which integrates effectively with its surroundings.

I have been provided with examples of nearby properties where the garage is forward of the principle elevation. These include Nos [address], [address] and [address]. While all bear a similarity to the proposal, in that they relate to bungalows with garages, they are all detached garages. The garage of No 11 is set perpendicular to the principal elevation, and therefore has a different, less dominant, relationship with the cul-de-sac than the appeal site. The garage of No 7 is in the same orientation as its host, and therefore blends appropriately with the street scene. No 21 is the most similar to the appeal proposal, however as above, it is detached and therefore does not read as a dislocation of the building. In addition, it is in a more prominent location than the appeal site when viewed from the road. Accordingly, none of the examples provided are sufficiently comparable to the proposal in question, and therefore do not alter my recommendation.

The appeal site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape1. It is however within a built up urban area and the proposed development would be very small scale in that context. I am therefore satisfied that the appeal scheme would not have a harmful effect on its special qualities.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.