Appeal 3338409

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed building on the character and appearance of the street scene; and on parking at the appeal property and highway safety.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling in a row of detached and semi-detached properties of individual design and appearance located outside but close to the [name] settlement boundary. The surrounding area is predominantly rural in character.

Policies COM01 and GEN02 of the Breckland Local Plan (2023) both require high quality design in new development that respects and integrates with the character of the surrounding area. Policy 3A of the Saham Toney Neighbourhood Plan (2021) also requires high quality design that responds positively to, and where possible, reinforces and enhances the characteristic features of the local built environment. It also says that the height, scale and layout of proposals should respond sensitively and complement positive features in the surrounding built form.

Comparisons are drawn between the appeal proposal and a previous unsuccessful application for a similar form of development. [name] note this, I have considered the proposal before me on its individual merits.

I agree with the Council that the immediate vicinity is characterised by a loose pattern of development of detached dwellings set back from the road with open frontages. This openness is further accentuated by the undeveloped countryside on the opposite side of the road.

The proposed garage is of traditional design and appearance and would utilise materials that are appropriate for the rural location. Due to its single storey height and overall size it would be subordinate to the two storey host dwelling. Its position to the front and side of the dwelling would not be unusual for this type of outbuilding where there is no vehicular access to the side or rear of a property. As a result of the depth and extent of the open frontage the garage would not appear cramped or a form of overdevelopment.

There are no other examples of similar detached garages within the street scene. However, for the above reasons, the proposed outbuilding would not be incongruous within the residential curtilage of the appeal property. In terms of the effect on local character, the short row of recently built dwellings of which the appeal property is part are set further back on their plots than the dwellings to the north, leading to the junction of [site address] with [address]. As a result, the garage would have a similar front building line to that of [address], the adjoining dwelling and others a short distance to the north.

As [site address] and its immediate neighbours are seen within this wider context, the proposal would not introduce development in an uncharacteristic position within the street scene. I acknowledge that the appeal property is on higher ground than the road, but the difference in levels is not significant enough to result in the outbuilding appearing unduly prominent, particularly when seen against the backdrop of the materially larger two storey dwellings.

Therefore, taking these findings as a whole, I conclude that the proposed building would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. As such, there is no conflict with Policies COM01 and GEN02 of the Breckland Local Plan, or with Policy 3A of the Saham Toney Neighbourhood Plan, as described. The proposal is also not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which advocates good design.

The Highway Authority’s (HA) concern arises from the size of the two parking spaces within the garage, which are considered to be below standard. I acknowledge the appellant’s contention that the 6 x 6 metre building is sufficient to park two vehicles. However, it is usual that domestic garages are used for other purposes, such as general storage. Indeed, the appellant indicates that the building would be used to store bicycles. Consequently, a garage needs to be large enough to accommodate modern, family sized vehicles and some storage.

The HA has not indicated the minimum size an internal space should be, by reference to particular standards, including the size and layout of spaces. Nonetheless, I agree that the garage is unlikely to be of sufficient size to readily accommodate two vehicles, particularly due to the other domestic uses that are likely to occur. This would result in parking on the frontage area 2 outside the garage. I accept the appellant’s contention that there would be sufficient space to park vehicles in this location. However, with at least two vehicles likely to be parked, I accept also the HA’s view that there would be limited space to turn and manoeuvre vehicles such that they could leave the site in forward gear. Consequently, use of the parking area would be most likely to result in vehicles exiting in reverse gear onto [site address] , which would not be conducive to highway safety.

Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on parking and highway safety. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies TR01 and TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan, and Policies 3C and 3D of the Saham Toney Neighbourhood Plan, which are concerned with transport, including parking and safe access. It is also contrary to the Framework, with regard to the effects of development on highway safety and minimising the scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles1.

I acknowledge that the garage is intended to deter vehicle crime and that it could provide better access for electric vehicle charging. However, these are not sufficient reasons to set aside the harm and conflict with the development plan found above. The fact that the Parish Council did not object does not weigh in favour of the proposal, but rather is a neutral factor.

For the reasons given with regard to the effect of the proposal on parking and highway safety, the appeal should not succeed.