Appeal 3337822

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner above, I have used the description of development from the decision notice instead of the planning application form. This describes the development more concisely.

At the time of my site visit the construction of a building at the site had commenced but was incomplete. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

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

The appeal site is a detached dwelling located within ribbon development along [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature comprising of dwellings of varied design. The building line along [address] is generally varied, although Nos. 15 – [address] (Nos. 15 – 21), are set back a significant distance from the public highway and have a more uniformed building line. This set back, plot widths and absence of tall boundary treatment, result in the frontages to this group of dwellings having a general sense of openness. [address], there are a number of garages which are sited to the front of their properties.

The garage has a large footprint and is proposed to have a shallow, hipped roof design. The garage is positioned within the front curtilage, some distance from the dwelling itself or other built form. The siting of the garage appears visually Appeal Decision: APP/P4415/D/24/3337822 disconnected from the dwelling and other buildings in the area. The close proximity of the development to the [address], and distance from other buildings, is such that the building appears prominent in the streetscene. Some views of garage along [address] are obscured by existing buildings or landscaping. However, the frontages of Nos.19 and 21 are open and the garage is viewed across these frontages. This context exacerbates the detachment and prominence of the building which results in an erosion of the open character of the frontages.

The garage is positioned a similar distance from [address] as No.11a. However, the garage is separated from this property by the frontage of No.15. This separation means the built and visual context of the garage is Nos. 15-21, rather than 11a. As observed above, these properties are set back from the highway and have open and spacious frontages, which the garage erodes.

The detached garage to the front of No.15 is set back a greater distance from [address] than the appeal building. In addition, it is positioned behind the building line of No.11a by some distance, and appears closely related to existing built form. As such that garage does not appear prominent. Other garages along [address] are also closely related to other built form and, as such, I do not find them to be directly comparable to the appeal proposals.

I acknowledge that the scale of the building has been reduced from that previously considered at appeal1 and, as such, the overall effect on the character and appearance of the area would be reduced to some degree. However, it is understood that the siting and footprint of the building remains the same to that previously considered. As observed by the previous Inspector, the “garage is prominently located to the front of the appeal property”. [name] have observed above, I find the proximity to [address], and distance from other buildings to result in a prominent and harmful form of development. In any event, I have considered the revised appeal proposals on its individual merits.

I accept that the effect of the development could be softened through landscaping and a 2m high hawthorn hedge has been proposed along the [address] frontage. However, as identified by the previous Inspector, landscaping should not be relied upon to screen an otherwise unacceptable form of development. In any event, the landscaping proposed would only partially screen or soften the development from the front. No landscaping is proposed along the side boundary and prominent views of the development across the frontages of Nos. 19 and 21 would remain. The example of screening cited at South Anston2 also appears to be contextually different and as such does not have a significant bearing on my conclusions.

Therefore, the garage has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development is contrary to Policies CS28 and SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014; and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, amongst other things, these require development to be of high-quality design. The development is also contrary to the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2020) which seeks to resist 1 APP/P4415/D/23/3328762 2 Appeal Statement – Appendix 1 Appeal Decision: APP/P4415/D/24/3337822 the construction of garages in front gardens, unless it is demonstrated that no harm to the street scene will occur.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.