Appeal 3326902

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a garage at [site address] , Norfolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2023/0648, dated 12 March 2023, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location plan TQRQM23071123857986, Block plan TQRQM23071124320374, Floor Plan, Facade 1-3, Facade 3-1, [name] and [name].

No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the garage hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The description of development given on the application form is extensive. I have therefore used the same description of development as the Council on its decision notice in the interests of conciseness.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is a small lane to the eastern side of the village of [site address] . Between its junction with [address] and [address] to the north and the [address] to the south it is exclusively formed of detached bungalows and chalet bungalows with well-proportioned front gardens. These face on to an open field on the opposing side of the road. This allows for longer views and a feeling of spaciousness on this edge of village location.

The bungalows are of differing sizes, designs and positions within their plots but all that directly address the road feature generally open frontages. The front boundary treatments vary but are typically open to the road, or with hedges. or low boundary walls. The side boundaries at the front of properties also vary but are normally planted out with hedges or fenced.

The proposed garage would project forward of the existing house. Number 118, and its immediate neighbour at number 116, are set back from the road by one of the greatest distances of all the bungalows along the lane. The proposed garage would only project forward of other properties by a modest degree. It would be a relatively low structure with a shallow mono-pitch roof and natural wood facing. Its overall height would only just exceed that of the boundary fence.

Due to its set-back position that is close to the existing bungalow, itself set well back from the road, the new garage would not intrude on the general open aspect to the front of these homes. The prevalence of boundary treatments between homes and the mentioned set-back position means it is unlikely to be visible in longer views along the lane.

I recognise the Council’s concern; that a proliferation of detached garages to the front of bungalows along this part of [address] would have an adverse impact upon its open and spacious character. However, I have had regard to the low profile of the garage proposed here, its proximity to the existing bungalow, which is set-back by a greater degree than most along the road, and the remaining open distance to the front boundary. I have also noted the use of softer wooden materials in its construction. In combination, these factors are sufficient to minimise the visual impact of this garage, in this particular location, and are unlikely to be replicated with such minimal impact in nearby locations.

I conclude that the garage would be sufficiently unobtrusive in the street scene so as not to disrupt the open character and appearance of [address]. The development complies with policy GC4 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015 which promotes high standards of design which reinforce local distinctiveness through careful consideration of the treatment of space.

I have imposed a time limit condition and a condition to ensure the development is completed in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, I have also attached a pre-commencement condition to secure details of materials as these are not specified in the application. The appellant has indicated that such a condition would be acceptable.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.