Appeal 3363173

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of its surroundings.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow sited on a junction with its flank frontage running alongside [address]. The property’s detached garage1 is set at the bottom of its rear garden, accessed off [address]. [address] is a relatively lengthy road containing a variety of house designs, but its northern frontage in the section between [address] and [address] is occupied by bungalows and their flat roofed, low profiled domestic garages.

The appellant proposes to erect a roof above the garage. In comparison with the bungalows to the west, the roof would have a steep pitch, and its height and apparent mass would far exceed that of its neighbours. The appellant considers the ridge height to be an essential design feature intended to achieve enhanced functionality and aesthetic harmony, and points to two examples of what he regards as similar development elsewhere in Fernhill Heath2. He also considers that any assessment should properly concentrate on the relationship between the garage and its host property, rather than with other development.

To my mind, however, the appellant’s garage has a far closer visual and physical relationship with [address] than the host property – it stands immediately next to it and is separated from the host property by the full length of its rear garden. Currently, the relationship between the appellant’s garage and other 1 Although described as a garage, the garage door has been removed and replaced with a pedestrian door. 2 Albeit without planning reference or illustration. development is visually harmonious, with development being of a similar height and scale. However, the proposed structure, if built, in view of what I regard as its excessive height and mass for its context, would stand out incongruously and obtrusively in the street scene, and would be perceived as visually dominating in its relationship with [address].

I therefore conclude that the proposal, if built, would harm the character and appearance of its surroundings. Accordingly, a material conflict arises with some of the main objectives of policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and policy NCD1 of the North Claines Neighbourhood Plan, since the proposal would fail to integrate effectively with its surroundings and would not be in keeping with its architectural characteristics.

I have taken account of all other matters raised, including the references to the relevant Design Guide3, and the points raised in representations made by members of the local community. It is not for me to speculate about the future use of the increased space, were the appeal to succeed. On the other hand, I acknowledge the appellant’s wish to create additional space, and the reasons for it which he regards as a community benefit. However, I have found the proposal to be objectionable for the reasons already set out.

No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh those considerations that led to my conclusions.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.