Appeal 3322761

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Erection of triple garage with room in roof space’ at Woodlock, [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00674/HOU, dated 15 March 2023, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The description of development was slightly amended following the submission of the application. I have utilised the amended description.

The Officer’s Delegated Report describes the proposed development as follows: “The proposed development would result in a new detached dwelling forward of the existing property, resulting in the sub-division and reduction in size pf the existing residential plot. The resultant dwelling would appear at odds with the prevailing character of the area and incongruous within the street scene.”. The appeal proposal relates to an ancillary garage outbuilding and its does not propose either a change of use within the meaning of Section 55 (3) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or subdivision of the plot either physically or in respect of planning units. I have considered the appeal as described, on face value. Naturally, were the development proposed by the appeal as described in the [name], the main issues and material considerations for the appeal would have been different.

The main issue for this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling situated along [site address] , a predominantly residential road which bounds the north to south edge of the settlement of Hook and which flies over the M3 Motorway linking several smaller settlements. As such, the character of [site address] varies significantly along its length. The stretch of [site address] closest to the appeal site is within the built settlement area of Hook. At this point, the [site address] meets several other roads and thus there is great variance in building type, scale, orientation, siting, set-back, building line as well as a variance in the grain of development reflective of that of the various off-shoot roads.

The appeal site is one of a few larger detached dwellings set back from the road across large front gardens. The appeal site is well screened from the road.

The appeal scheme would introduce a large-detached garage into the front garden, close to the road and at a distance from the host dwelling. Despite the distance from the dwelling, the garage building would have a clear association with it due to its siting within the singularly enclosed front garden between the house and the road, and due to its detailed design. Whilst supplementary planning guidance provides good advice as to what may constitute good and subservient design, it must be applied flexibly and with regard to the built context. The detailed design and building type of the appeal site would be clearly appreciated as a detached outbuilding ancillary to the main dwelling. Whilst the building would be large, it would not appear out of scale or as overdevelopment by virtue of the generous plot, the size and design of the host dwelling and its distance from it. As such, it would not appear as an incongruous form of development.

The host dwelling and the immediately surrounding dwellings have an extensive setback and a loosely consistent building line, albeit not an unbroken line. However, this is not appreciated from the public domain due to the extent of setback from the road and mature vegetation which provides screening. Moreover, this building line is not maintained along the toad or even the stretch of road in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site; there are several dwellings, outbuildings and mobile homes close to and prominent within the street scene. As such, although the garage building would be much closer to the road than the host dwelling and the adjacent dwellings, it would not appear unduly prominent, dominant or obtrusive in its built context.

For these reasons, the appeal scheme is in accordance with GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) [name], adopted 2020, policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites), adopted 2020, and policy HK12 of the Hook Neighbourhood Plan, made 2019. These policies seek, amongst other things, high quality design which contributes positively to the overall appearance of the local area and which incorporates the local vernacular.

The Council has requested a total of 3 conditions; a 3-year commencement date for development, construction in accordance with approved plans and materials in accordance with plans and those specified in the application form. I consider these policies necessary, reasonable and in compliant with the legal and policy tests for conditions to ensure that development takes place in a timely manner and in line with the proposed design details.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the appeal scheme accords with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the Development Plan. The appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan P2, [name] P21 and Proposed Site Plan P.2C.

Notwithstanding the conditions above, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with those specified in approved plans above and the application form.