Appeal 3372875

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of garage and construction of outbuilding to provide garage and gym, new gate and fence at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/25/0594/HH, 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 approved plan: drawing reference 20932-P002-F

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as ‘ [site address] , [site address] , [site address] ’.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

There is a discrepancy between the original description of the development as shown on the planning application form and that used by the Council on the decision notice. I have taken the description of the development in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice, which the appellant has also adopted on the appeal form, as it more accurately describes the proposal.

The proposal includes a new gate and fence. The Council have not objected to this aspect of the proposal, and I find no reason to disagree. Consequently, my recommendation focuses on the effect of the proposed outbuilding. Appeal Planning Officer APP/J1915/D/25/3372875

The main issue is the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

[address] is located in a residential area characterised by an eclectic mixture of dwellings. The appeal site comprises of a detached single storey dwelling situated on a long narrow plot. There is an existing double garage with a shallow pitched roof situated to the rear garden of the site, which is accessed from a private track off [address] separating the appeal site and railway line.

The proposal would be larger than many domestic garages in the area although its location within a deep garden means it would not appear cramped or contrived within the plot. It would be situated in a similar position to that of the current garage and would remain physically and visually separate from the main dwelling and would not encroach upon most of the rear garden. It would retain a subservient relationship with the main dwelling.

Built structures to the rear of [address] are a common feature and while not immediately obvious from the road, they are intermittently visible through gaps between properties. The garden boundary of the appeal site runs alongside a residential cul de sac ‘The Nook’. Although the proposal would be higher than the neighbouring shallow pitched roof garage at number [address], given the surrounding context, in particular the neighbouring pitched roof bungalow in ‘The Nook’, it would not be incongruous or have a harmful effect on the prevailing character of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed outbuilding would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, it would not conflict with Policies DES4, VILL1, HOU11 of the East Herts District Plan (2018) which seek, amongst other matters, development of a high standard of design and layout, that is appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the surrounding area.

The standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary as this provides clarity. A condition is also necessary to ensure that the proposed building remains incidental to the main dwelling, in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupants.

Although the Council has suggested the use of a condition requiring external finishes in matching materials, this is unnecessary as the materials proposed are annotated on the approved plan.

Neighbouring residents have raised concerns about access to their garages during the construction period, as they are in daily use. The Council’s Officer report suggests a construction management plan could be necessary providing details of how the development can be constructed without impeding neighbouring occupiers’ ability to access their properties. However, given the modest scale of the Appeal Planning Officer APP/J1915/D/25/3372875 development, and that the appeal site has off street parking to the front that could accommodate construction vehicles if needed, I am satisfied that the proposal can be constructed whilst maintaining neighbours’ access to their garages. Therefore, a condition requiring a construction management plan to be provided is not necessary in this instance.

The proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.