Appeal 3352931

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached double garage with office and storage within the roof space and PV panels, to be used ancillary to the main dwelling, in accordance with the terms of planning permission ref.24/01091 dated 2 May 2024, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan received 2/5/24, CFI/G/01 A & CFI/G/02 B.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the main dwelling known as Cygnets.

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the flood management and mitigation measures set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, produced by KRS Environmental dated April 2024.

The ground floor garage accommodation hereby permitted shall be kept available at all times for the parking of motor vehicles by the occupants of the dwelling and their visitors and for no other purpose.

In the box heading and formal decision above I have used the description of the proposal from the Decision Notice issued by the Council because it more specifically describes what development is proposed in the planning application.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The appeal site is a contemporary two-storey detached dwelling raised above ground level on piers. It is situated on the west side of [site address] in Wraysbury. [site address] is an unadopted single carriageway road characterised by residential properties of varying types, designs and ages. with the majority of buildings being detached residential dwellings of varying age of construction, design and architectural style.

The river Thames runs immediately to the rear of the appeal site. From [site address] , the dwelling stands back from the front of the plot by about 26m. The front part of the site is partly hardstanding and partly grassed. There is a circa 1.[address]-boarded fence on the front boundary which the Council indicates is recently erected and unauthorised. The detached dwelling to the south of the appeal site is [name]. This has a garage on the common boundary with the appeal site, within the front forecourt/garden area.

The proposed development scheme would involve the erection of a detached double garage with an office and storage area in the roof space. There would be PV panels on the roof. The building would be erected on the southern boundary of the appeal site in the front garden area abutting the northern wall of [name] garage. The building would be about 7.3m wide and about 5.8m deep. The roof would be split level with a lower section on the northern side of the building, allowing vertical north-facing fenestration in the office space. The maximum height of the roof would be about 5.1m.

Whilst it would be a prominent building in the streetscene there are a number of factors that would render it acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area. First, it would have a two level roof with the lower level to the north allowing views to focus beyond to main dwelling. Second the roof design would reflect the unusual design of the main dwelling’s roofscape and so produce a visually harmonious aspect. Third, it would sit to the south side of the plot on the common boundary and mask the rear of the single storey garage at [name]. This proposed siting would be sympathetic to the streetscene. Fourth, it would not present a wholly blank flank façade to [site address] because of the flood relief opening in that flank wall.

In relation to the wider area, outbuildings of various sizes and scales situated to the front of the front elevation of dwellings are commonplace along [site address] . An annexe such as the one proposed, situated close to the narrow road, would not be out of keeping with the established grain of the area.

The proposal would not harm the setting of the [name] given the location of the appeal proposal, in front of the dwelling away from the [name]. The Council agrees with this assessment. 10.I therefore conclude that the proposal would not unduly harm the character and appearance of the streetscene. It would not be in conflict with policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (adopted 2022), policies NP/HOU1 and NP/HOU2 of the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2020) or Principles 5.1, 6.8 and 7.6 of the Borough Wide Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2020).