Appeal 6001042

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

Planning permission has already been granted for a replacement dwelling on the site, and this approved dwelling is now substantially complete. I have therefore assessed the proposed garage in relation to that approved dwelling.

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

The appeal site is located on a section of [address] which is largely characterised by residential dwellings in a mixture of styles to one side and allotments beyond grassed verges and hedging to the other. The dwellings to the side where [site address] is located follow a broadly similar alignment, each being set a substantial distance back from its front boundary. Where garages and outbuildings serve these neighbouring properties, they are more typically aligned with, or set back from, the principal elevations of the dwellings. These factors ensure that there is an overriding order to the position of buildings and this positively contributes to the sense of openness and a semi-rural character.

The South Cambridgeshire District Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010) states that in most cases garages located within the dwelling plot should be recessed from the building frontage so as to lessen their visual impact.

By virtue of its substantial form, its position forward of the prevailing building frontage on [address], in close proximity to the front boundary, the double garage would be an unduly prominent feature that would detract from the established order and spacious character to this section of [address]. I accept materials sympathetic to surrounding properties would be used and that the existing and proposed hedgerows would to some extent screen the garage from the street. However, the new planting would take time to establish. Even then, the garage would be visible through the site entrance and its upper parts, including the roof, would likely protrude above the top of the new hedge. Consequently, these factors would not fully assimilate the building’s incongruous form and siting.

My attention has been drawn to a limited number of examples of garages positioned within the frontages of properties in Comberton. However, most of these are located on Green End, and neither these nor the single example referred to on [address] provide a compelling precedent or justify the harm identified having regard to the prevailing character of the appeal site’s immediate context.

I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 which, amongst other matters, requires development to make a positive contribution to its local context and to be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of form and siting in relation to the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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