Appeal 3352714

The appeal is dismissed.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal states that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety due to limited on street parking.

At my site visit I observed there to be plentiful scope for off-street parking on the relatively large driveway of the appeal property. This would not be altered by the proposed development and there is no evidence at all to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in any harm to highway safety. Consequently, the main issue in this case is that set out below.

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

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling situated within a modern housing estate. A driveway runs along the side of the dwelling to a single storey double garage located towards the rear of the property.

Like neighbouring dwellings, the appeal dwelling is set well back from the road behind a front garden area and has a garden to the rear. Dwellings in the area tend to be similar in appearance and set within comfortable garden plots and these factors, together with the use of similar building materials and the presence of areas of green open space, contribute green, uniform and spacious qualities to the area’s character.

Further to the above, I observed during my site visit that dwellings within the housing estate are detached and that most have detached single storey double garages. Generally, these garages are located separately from but close to dwellings and have a square-shaped footprint.

The garages appear considerably smaller than and consequently ancillary to, their host dwellings and they do not detract significantly from the area’s spacious qualities. Further, their generally square-shaped footprints and similar design, including roof forms, contributes towards the area’s uniform attributes.

The proposed development would elongate the appeal property’s garage to so a significant extent that it would result in a building of such size that the garage would no longer appear subordinate to the host dwelling. Rather, the extended garage would begin to visually compete with the host dwelling as a large building in its own right, severely reducing its ancillary appearance. The harmful effect of this would be exacerbated by the considerable volume that would be added at roof level.

Further to the above, the size and scale of the proposed development would be such that it would adversely affect the area’s spacious qualities.

Also, the design of the proposed development, with its elongated form, its large roof and its red cedar cladding, would appear out of keeping with the more uniform appearance of buildings within the wider area. As such, the proposed development would appear discordant within its surroundings, most notably within a garden setting where no other such large garages are visible.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policy DMG1 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy (2014), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

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