Appeal 3348404

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant raises a number of points in respect of communications with the Council. These are matters between the appellant and the Council.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property comprises a detached brick-built one and a half storey dwelling located on an L-shaped plot within a residential area characterised by the presence of one, one and a half and two storey dwellings.

The appeal property is situated in a prominent corner location. One side of the end of the property’s front garden is adjacent to where [address] meets [address] and the other side is adjacent to where [address] meets [name]. The appeal property is accessed directly from [name].

The appeal property is set back from its access area behind garden land and the boundaries of the property include thick and tall hedgerows, trees and fences. The juxtaposition of the appeal property and its neighbour, Number 23 [name], is such that the access and front garden area of the appeal property is adjacent to the end of No 23’s main garden area, which is denoted by a relatively low fence and a small garden shed.

During my site visit, I observed the area around the appeal site to be notably green and spacious. In particular, that area closest to [address]’s junctions with [address] and [name] is distinguished by the presence of substantial grass verges, hedgerows, trees and garden areas. Whilst low walls, fences and as above, a small garden shed, are present, the absence of large buildings – with dwellings being well-separated by gardens - provides for an attractive, green and spacious entrance into [address] from [address].

The proposed development would comprise a large, tall, detached three bay garage. It would be sited at the end of the appeal property’s garden, close to the access to [name] and adjacent to [address], between its junctions with [address] and [name].

Its height and overall scale would lead the proposed development to appear to loom above garden fences and hedgerows. I find that this would result in the proposal drawing attention to itself as a large and bulky structure. As such, it would appear out of keeping with and detract significantly from, the area’s spacious attributes.

The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the proposed use of timber cladding, which would be out of character with larger buildings in the area, which tend to be brick-built and would result in the proposal drawing attention to itself as an incongruous feature.

Further, the proposed development would be sited in a prominent location, close to two junctions, resulting in being widely visible from a range of locations. Thus, whilst the lower parts of the proposal would be hidden from view behind boundary features including surrounding greenery, its prominence, size and incongruous appearance would lead it to draw undue attention to itself from a range of locations.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would appear as an obtrusive feature that would detract significantly from the area’s spacious qualities.

Taking all of this into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to [site address] [name] (2012) Policy EQ11; and to the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In support of his case, the appellant refers to other developments elsewhere. However, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that the circumstances relating to these are so similar to those of the proposal before me as to provide for direct comparison. Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the proposal would result in significant harm and this is not something that is mitigated by the presence of other developments elsewhere. 2

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.