Appeal 3351917

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the relocation of the existing garage and the development of a new garage.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a two-storey rear extension at [site address] , Gloucestershire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].24/0642/HHOLD, and the plans submitted with it and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: [name]. 10182/01 [name], [name]. 10182/03 [name] and [name]. 10182/04.

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

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

Westbourne is a two-storey dwelling located to the east of [address], finished in brick and render, and set within a generously sized plot that allows the dwelling to Appeal Planning Officer APP/C1625/D/24/3351917 be positioned well back from the highway and provides a substantial rear garden. At the rear of the property is a modest single-storey extension spanning just over half the width of the building, with a single garage situated to the southeast.

The surrounding properties feature a mix of architectural styles and designs, including homes similar to Westbourne, bungalows, and more modern constructions, mostly finished in brick and render. While most neighbouring properties follow a relatively consistent building line, some are noticeably closer to the highway. During my site visit, I observed that a number of two-storey dwellings in the vicinity have been extended with large rear additions, sometimes covering the full width of the host property and significantly increasing the depth from the original structures.

The Council contends that the proposal would constitute an addition to the host dwelling which would lack subservience. While the proposed extension is undeniably substantial relative to the existing property’s size, the substantial rear garden could adequately accommodate the proposal. Furthermore, the proposal would align with the established pattern of development in the area, where similar two-storey properties frequently feature sizeable rear two-storey extensions, significantly greater in depth than the original dwelling.

The proposed extension would increase the bulk of the property. However, compared with the large, full-width rear extensions of neighbouring properties, the bulk of this extension would be relatively limited, as it would be confined to the width of the existing single-storey rear extension. As a result, the overall bulk of the proposal is notably smaller than that of neighbouring extensions, making it a proportionate and acceptable addition when viewed in the context of the site's wider setting.

While the first-floor rear extension window would be positioned slightly higher than the existing windows on the rear elevation, the existing first floor windows already vary in positioning relative to the rear eaves. As such, whilst this level of detailing may appear slightly discordant, its impact would be very minor and limited due to the restricted visibility from the public realm. Therefore, this would not be a reason to dismiss the appeal.

For the reasons above, the rear extension to the property would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and would accord with Policies HC8 (2) and CP14 (5) of the Stroud District Local Plan (SDLP) (Adopted 2015). Together, these notably seek to ensure development is in keeping with the scale and character of the site’s wider setting and location and is appropriate in design and appearance which is respectful to the surroundings and built environment.

The proposed hobby garage would be located approximately on the site of the existing garage to the southeast of Westbourne. While the relocation of the existing garage further east would be acceptable in isolation, the proposed height of its replacement, matching the rear eaves of the host dwelling, would result in a substantial structure far taller than the existing garage and disproportionate when compared to the host dwelling. Furthermore, the use of green canvas materials Appeal Planning Officer APP/C1625/D/24/3351917 would contrast harmfully with the predominantly brick and render finishes of nearby properties. Combined with its height, this choice of materials would result in a garage that appears excessively large, incongruous, and overly dominant, causing harm to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed new garage would harm the character and appearance of both the host property and the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policies HC8 and CP14 of the SDLP, which, among other considerations, require that development respects the height and scale of the original dwelling, aligns with the character of the wider area, and is appropriate in appearance.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, it is necessary in the interests of precision, to define the plans with which the scheme should accord to those submitted with the application. A condition regarding external materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the host property and the locality.

The two aspects of the development identified above are clearly severable.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the relocation of the existing garage and the new hobby garage. I recommend that the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a two-storey rear extension.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the relocation of the existing garage and the new hobby garage and is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a two-storey rear extension.