Appeal 3343470

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and erection of combined garage and residential annex at ground floor, offices and WC at first floor and new access door and wall to main house at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00285/FULHH, subject to the following conditions:

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

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match or complement those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans: 0/A000/BP/001 A 0/A100/PR/001 D 0/A200/PR/001 A 0/A200/PR/005 A 0/A600/PR/001 0/A600/PR/003 A 0/A600/PR/004 A 0/A600/PR/005

The building hereby permitted shall be occupied and used only ancillary to the use of the main house at No [site address] .

An application for costs was made by [name] against Tendring District Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

Repeated reference is made in the written representations to a previous unsuccessful application in 2023 for a comparable development on the same site, wherein the Appellant and his agent were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Council. However, whilst that may remain an issue of concern between the Appellant, his agent and the Council, it is not a matter for the Planning Inspectorate or for this appeal. This appeal is determined on an entirely fresh appraisal of the present proposal, strictly on its own individual planning merits.

The main issues in this appeal relate to: the design of the proposed built development and its effect upon the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the site and surrounding area of [address] and [address]; its effect on local amenity, in particular the privacy of No [address]; and whether it would provide safe and adequate access and car parking facilities.

Planning policy relevant to this appeal is contained within the adopted Tendring District Local Plan (TDLP).

TDLP Policy SP7, on place shaping, requires all development to respond positively to local character and individual architectural quality, to protect residential amenity and to include well-integrated parking facilities.

TDLP Policy SPL3, on sustainable design, seeks a positive contribution to the local environment and protection or enhancement of local character and distinctiveness, with development well-related to its surroundings in siting, height, scale and massing. It should respect the local street pattern, with boundary treatments reflecting the function and character of the surroundings. Development should also provide practicable and safe vehicle access, adequate daylight, outlook and privacy for neighbouring residents, and adequate amenity space and parking for occupiers.

All these provisions are essentially consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The proposed development must meet all these policy requirements in order to achieve the requisite compliance with the development plan as a whole.

The development would replace an existing substantial but single-storey, utilitarian garage building with a modern, two-storey garage and residential annex, adjacent to the south eastern boundary, shared with No [address]. The building would thus appear more prominent than its predecessor, due mainly to its additional height. However, the upper storey would be set back from both its street frontages to [address] and [address]. In my view, this would avoid any impression of undue bulkiness.

The annex would have little visual impact on the main property frontage to [address] itself. [address], the building would have greater presence in the street scene and would appear similar to a domestic dwelling. It would also reduce, to some extent, the degree of openness that results from the generous rear garden that separates No 70 from the present garage. In that regard I accept that, in visual terms, the building would not be closely associated with or subservient to the main house, as would be more typical of a residential annex.

However, I dwell more upon the practical planning impacts of the development. In its design, the annex would reflect the form and detailing of other buildings in the varied local street scene.

Overall, I consider that the new building would enhance the design quality of the property, in harmony with the street scene and, despite the degree of reduced openness, would contribute positively to the character of the locality, respecting its distinctiveness.

The second reason for refusal cites potential overlooking from a proposed Juliet balcony at first floor level in the south west elevation of the proposed building facing No [address]. Noting that the Juliet balcony would be set back behind a flat roof, I do not consider that the degree of overlooking or any consequent reduction in privacy at No 68A would be unaceptable. That is due also to the intervening distance and the generally urban nature the surrounding area, where a degree of overlooking is to be expected.

In other respects, I accept that the increased height and massing of the proposed building, over that of the present garage, would to some extent reduce natural lighting to neighbouring properties and affect their outlook, including No [address] adjacent. However, I agree with the Council that, due to a lack of main facing windows and the intervening distances, these effects would not be such as to warrant substantive planning objection.

The chief concern on access and parking relates to the size of the garage, which strictly fails to comply with accepted standards. However, it does not appear to me that the proposed ancillary building would alter the present parking demand from the appeal property, compared with the present situation, where on-street parking appears to be available on [address] in any event.

Otherwise, vehicle access to the proposed garage would be much as it is at present, with turning space and visibility available within the comparatively generous width of [address], without material impact on road safety.

Although not expressly sought by the Council, a condition confirming that the use of the proposed building would be ancillary to the main dwelling for a single household is appropriate in this case, in addition to those requiring complementary finishing materials and compliance with the approved drawings.

The Council takes no issue with the proposed front entrance door and boundary wall and I agree that there is no planning objection to those elements of the scheme. Indeed, the enclosure of the front forecourt and addition of a street-facing entrance door would be consistent with the character of the existing street frontage of [address], resulting in a degree of additional design enhancement.

I have considered every matter raised in the written representations, including the views of neighbouring residents, but find no other matter sufficient to affect my decision.

For all the reasons explained, and subject to the conditions I have outlined, I conclude that the proposed development would comply in all respects with requirements of the relevant policies summarised above and with the development plan as a whole.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the planning permission sought is granted.