Appeal 3344251

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the appearance of the surrounding streetscene.

The appeal property lies in a countryside location and contains a detached dwelling, detached garage and various small outbuildings. The dwelling is of traditional built form. The detached garage and outbuildings are ancillary buildings to the dwelling. The ancillary nature allows for the dwelling to predominate within the site. The built form in the surrounding area is predominately residential and includes recent residential development.

[name] GEN2 and H8 in the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005), require development to be compatible with the appearance of surrounding buildings. Saved Local Plan Policy S7 states that that development will only be permitted in the countryside if its appearance protects or enhances the particular character of the part of the countryside within which it is set or if there is a special reason why the development in the form proposed needs to be there. These parts of the saved policies are broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework where the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character.

The proposal seeks to convert the existing garage and adjoining store with a proposed side extension to accommodate a staircase. On the southern elevation there would be first floor dormer windows over a large part of the roof structure. In addition, at ground floor level, the garage doors would be replaced with glazed folding doors.

Due to the proposed design, I consider that the proposal would appear as a secondary residential unit within the site. The disproportionate and unsympathetic additions of the rear extension and dormers would be to the detriment of the ancillary character and appearance of the garage building. As such, the ancillary character and appearance of the garage building would be lost. It would fail to enhance the character or appearance of the wider property and due to its design, it would fail to respect the original character and appearance of the garage building. As such, the proposal would create incongruous additions to the building, which would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the wider property. In such a prominent location, for the same reasons, this would be to the detriment of the appearance of the surrounding streetscene.

In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to all matters raised. For the above reasons, I consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the appearance of the surrounding streetscene. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to saved Local Plan Policies S7, GEN2 and H8 and contrary to the Framework.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.