Appeal 3354460

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed storey to garage to form an office at [site address] , Devon, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01079/HOUSE, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing nos 1 and 2c.

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

The development hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Hazeldene.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against Mid Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of development on the application form refers to a proposed storey to garage to form an office. The Council in its decision refer to the erection of first floor extension above garage to create office. The evidence that I have before me does not provide details of the appellant’s agreement to change the development description, therefore I have used the description of development provided on the application form.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed garage extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The garage is located on the roadside, in the rear garden of Hazeldene, a traditional two storey cottage. The garage is constructed in red brick with a tiled roof, matching the materials of Hazeldene. 49 and 51 Threshers are located opposite the garage and are part of a suburban housing estate, offset from the street by open plan gardens and driveways.

The proposed increase to the height of the garage would not look out of scale next to Hazeldene or the surrounding buildings, including 49 and 51 Threshers opposite. There would be a clear stepping down in the roof height from the ridge line of Hazeldene to that of the garage which would ensure that the building would look subservient. Indeed, the garage already forms part of the established street scene. Consequently, it already contributes to the character of the area, such that the proposed increase of height, would not be discordant. Although the flank elevation of the garage is located close to the back edge of the pavement, owing to the limited length of the building, the proposed additional storey, which would partially occupy the roof space, would not unduly enclose or urbanise the road.

With regards to the single storey height of garages in the surrounding areas of Westernlea, [address] and [name], I do not consider that it is an essential design feature that therefore needs to be replicated in order for the proposal to fit in. In this case the use of matching materials would be sufficient to ensure that the building unites with Hazeldene and is in keeping with the surrounding area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed garage extension would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies S1, DM1 and DM11 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2033; or Policies D1 and D5 of the Crediton Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2033. These policies require development to respect the local character of an area through its scale, setting and high-quality design.

In views from certain nearby dwellings the proposed additional storey would reduce views of gardens and open fields beyond. However, given the small footprint of the building and the limited increase in height that would occur the adverse effects in this regard would be small. A related concern regarding the effect of the proposal on property prices has also been raised. As Planning Practice Guidance1 though makes clear, it is the effect of a proposal on matters that affect the public interest which must be considered, such as the character and appearance, rather than its effect on private interests, such as house values.

Accordingly, I attach limited weight to these considerations put forward against the proposal. Consequently, they are insufficient to outweigh my finding in relation to the main issue and the compliance of the scheme with the development plan.

The Council has suggested conditions relating to the time limit for construction and compliance with plans and materials. They have also suggested a condition to require that the use is ancillary to Hazeldene. I have considered the conditions put 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 008 [name]: 21b-008-20140306 ‘What is a material planning consideration?’ forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of effectiveness and precision.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.