Appeal 3364222

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the building of a double garage on the driveway with mezzanine floor. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to a garden room extension on the patio at the rear of the house at [site address] , Kingswood, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00298/HHOLD, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, in so far as they relate to the single storey rear extension hereby permitted: 3GW-S1, 3GW-E1, 3GW-E2, 3GW-P3, 3GW-P2, 3GW-P1 & GW-E3.

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

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of The Warren & The Glade Residential Area of Special Character (RASC).

The RASC is characterised by individual detached dwellings occupying mature landscaped plots. The dwellings are typically set back from the highway behind generous sized front gardens and grass verges. This together with the abundance of trees, hedges and other soft planting contributes to the spacious and sylvan character and appearance of the area. Most of the properties include soft planting within and around their front gardens. There are also some properties that have detached garages in their front gardens. These are typically modest in size and height, set back from the front boundaries and/or partially screened from the street scene by soft planting.

[name] the curved alignment of the highway, grass verges, landscaped island at the end of the cul-de-sac, together with the soft landscaped open plan nature of some of the front gardens contributes to its spacious and sylvan quality.

The front garden of the appeal property slopes down towards the dwelling and is hard surfaced. There is tall mature planting and fencing to the sides of the front garden and a tall brick wall set behind a deep raised grass verge along part of the frontage to the property. The remainder of the front boundary is open, providing views into the front garden and towards the dwelling. The rear garden is spacious and enclosed by a combination of fencing and mature planting.

Policies DES1 and DES3 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management plan 2029 (DMP), expect new development to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its surroundings. To promote and reinforce local distinctiveness and to incorporate appropriate landscaping to mitigate the impact. [name] planning permission will be granted where plot frontages and boundary treatments reflect the existing street context and the design of buildings and landscape makes a positive contribution to the character of the area and promotes local distinctiveness. Section 5.5 of the council’s [name] and Alterations – Supplementary Planning Guidance 2004 (SPG) advises that garages in front gardens tend to look out of place within the street scene.

With the proposal the front garden would be excavated so that the proposed garage would sit at the same level as the host dwelling and partially below the front boundary wall. It would be sited close to and at right angles to the boundary wall and would include a second floor within the roof space which would be served by two dormer windows. To facilitate the first floor the proposed garage would be 5.8 metres tall and the roof pitch would be steeper than that of the host dwelling. The host dwelling has a shallow pitched roof and no dormers.

From the northwest and west the proposed garage would be partially screened by existing planting during the summer months; the side boundary fence; and the front brick wall. Despite this, its roof would be clearly visible and due to its combined height and bulk (including the dormer windows), it would be prominent. From the southwest more of the proposed garage would be clearly visible through the site entrance.

Overall, the proposed garage would have a visually hard and enclosing impact on the property and the street scene. It’s visually hard impact would be emphasised by the existing brick wall and large expanse of hard surfacing within the front garden. As a result, the proposed garage would unacceptably detract from the spacious and sylvan character and appearance of the street scene and the RASC. This harm would outweigh the storage and security benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the proposed garage. It is not a matter that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of

Conversely, the uncluttered form, fenestration and matching materials of the proposed rear extension would respect and blend in with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be set in from the sides of the dwelling and would benefit from its spacious setting within the mature landscaped rear garden environment. Due to the distance between the proposed rear extension and the adjacent dwellings, it would not have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of those dwellings.

Finally, the council has suggested the imposition of conditions relating to the use of matching external materials and adherence to the submitted drawings. In relation to the proposed rear extension these conditions would be effective and necessary. They would ensure that the rear extension respects the character and appearance of the host dwelling and in the interests of certainty.

I conclude on the main issue that the proposed garage would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the RASC. Accordingly, it would conflict with [name] DES1 & DES3 and the SPG. Conversely, the proposed rear extension would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the RASC and so would comply with the above policies and advice.

In view of the acceptability of the proposed rear extension I have considered the possibility of making a split decision. As the proposed garage is physically and functionally separate from the proposed garage a split decision is possible and appropriate.

Having regard to the conclusion of the main issue and all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed in-so-far as it relates to the proposed garage and allowed insofar as it relates the proposed rear extension.