Appeal 6001596

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for demolition of existing garage and link to house. Extensions on the north, east and south facades of the existing house, re-cladding of the existing house and associated landscaping is refused.

Following the submission of the appeal against non-determination, the Council has submitted a [name], which provides clarity in terms of the main reasons why the Council would have refused planning permission had it been able to do so. Therefore, the main issue below is taken from this document.

The proposal originally included the extension of the existing driveway into land to the east of the dwelling. I note the appellant’s position that the land affected is in the same ownership, lies adjacent to the garden, and is already visually associated with the dwelling. However, from the evidence before me, and as confirmed during my site visit, this area comprises an open field/paddock, separated from the existing driveway and garden by a post‐and‐rail fence and a metal field gate. It contains no domestic features and, at the time of my visit, held items associated with equestrian and agricultural use. It therefore lies outside the established area used for residential purposes associated with [site address] .

The appellant contends that the limited use of this land for an extended driveway would not materially alter its character or create a separate planning unit. I have also considered the appellant’s acceptance of a condition requiring all works to be contained within the residential curtilage, together with the suggestion that a landscaping plan could be secured to confirm this. In addition, the appellant has submitted amended drawings showing a revised red line that removes the minor driveway extension from the proposal as an alternative option.

Nevertheless, even with the amended red edge in place, or with the suggested conditions above, the submitted plans and elevations still show two of the three garage doors positioned outside the red edge boundary. Access to these garages would therefore not be possible without entering land that currently forms part of the adjoining field/paddock. A householder application cannot authorise the use of land outside the lawful residential area. My assessment below is therefore limited to the development within the established residential area.

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

The appeal site comprises an existing two-storey detached red-brick dwelling positioned on a slightly elevated, south-facing slope at the junction of [site address] and [address], north of Twyning. Open fields lie to the north of the site, with more regular built form to the south along [site address] . Owing to the slightly elevated position, the house is visible from its surrounds, including the surrounding road network, the northern hillside and from more distant viewpoints to the south. The site includes a small front garden enclosed by a low brick wall, with the remainder of the land to the north used for access, stabling and the storage of equestrian equipment. There is some established roadside vegetation, which the Council advise ‘had not yet undergone routine cutting due to the nesting season’. Nevertheless, views were still possible into the site, again partly due to it slightly elevated position.

The wider area has a rural character with a variety of dwelling styles and materials, including red brick, painted render and Tudor detailing. Timber cladding is also evident locally, on dormers, porches and surrounding agricultural buildings. Timber cladding is also evident on a converted building to the east. However, I observed a further brick-built dwelling on the same elevated slope to the east, and additional brick dwellings to the south. Accordingly, while there is some variation in materials, brick is the prevailing material, and dwellings also generally exhibit a traditional built form.

Accordingly, although the appellant describes the dwelling as utilitarian, plain and lacking detail, the existing dwelling at [site address] nonetheless sits appropriately within its rural context by virtue of its traditional form, brick construction and proportionate scale. As a result, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would introduce an incongruous form of development that does not sit comfortably within its rural context. In regard to the garage extension, the use of grey brick columns and cladding panels in the form and proportions proposed would be incompatible. The design features incorporating a cladded area of approximately 1.4 metres between the top of the garage doors and the eaves would make the northern elevation of the garage extension look unbalanced and top-heavy. It would also lack compositional harmony when seen alongside the more traditional architectural form of the existing dwelling.

The appellant states it was designed to ‘appear as a ‘barn type’ outbuilding attached to the house’, and that ‘the ‘hierarchy’ of farmhouse and outbuildings is a common feature of rural building groups’. However, due to its design and form, it would actually result in an awkward juxtaposition with the main dwelling. It is also noted that the garage extension would have a lower ridge height and a recessed façade to create two distinct buildings and reduce overall mass. However, these matters would do little to outweigh the design concerns raised above.

The appellant considers that the link element between the main dwelling and the garage would avoid a monolithic appearance and create a varied roofline with a legible hierarchy while maintaining visual cohesion. However, in practice, the differing eaves height would sit awkwardly alongside both the garage extension and the main dwelling. Although the link breaks up the massing, the eaves run only marginally below those of the main house when viewed from the north and would introduce a visually jarring relationship between the two structures, undermining the architectural form of the development.

The use of timber cladding alongside the use of grey multi-tonal brickwork would create a contemporary appearance that bears little relationship to the established traditional vernacular. When applied across the whole of the proposal and the existing dwelling, this combination of materials, would appear visually stark and out of keeping with the local character and nearby dwellings, which are characterised by more traditional materials, even where timber cladding has been incorporated.

The appellant’s references to nearby examples of dark board cladding, and to its citation within the National Design Guide, do not in themselves demonstrate that such materials would integrate successfully in this particular context. The instances identified vary notably in their scale, and function. They do not establish a coherent or prevailing pattern of development that would justify the approach taken in the appeal scheme. I am also not persuaded that the proposed colour palette would avoid visual dominance in the landscape, as claimed. The use of grey multi-tonal brick would appear incongruous within the immediate setting, even taking into account the appellant’s reference to buildings in the wider area that display lighter or weathered timber finishes, render or stone. Those examples do not equate to the same multi-tonal brick proposed here, nor do they provide a precedent for its use on the appeal site.

The appellant’s assertions regarding proportionality, subservience, and visual cohesion are not supported by the evidence before me and does not alter my overall assessment of the scheme. Despite the claimed refinement in massing and material choice, the cumulative design approach of the garage and link extension would be incongruous additions, materially harming the character of both the existing dwelling itself and the wider area.

Furthermore, the existing dwelling’s apparent lack of detailing and utilitarian appearance does not, in itself, justify the development. The proposal would not respond positively to local distinctiveness or reinforce the area’s more rural vernacular. While a diversity of designs exist within the wider surroundings, this does not imply that any material would be acceptable, nor does it diminish the need for development to be sympathetic to its immediate context. In this case, the proposed materials would represent an incongruous intervention that would harm the existing building and its relationship within the landscape.

For completeness, I do not share the Council’s concerns regarding the single-storey flat-roofed extension to the southern elevation or the flat-roof porch to the north. Owing to their modest scale, limited projection and simple form, both would read as clearly subordinate additions to the host dwelling. Although the southern extension would be visible from the public road and from filtered views to the south and east, its low height and flat-roof profile would ensure that it would not detract from the traditional form of the original building.

The proposed metal awnings, while contemporary, would be modest in scale and limited in prominence, and would not harmfully compete with the dwelling’s traditional character. Accordingly, and notwithstanding my wider concerns regarding the proposed grey brickwork, timber cladding and the matters identified above, I am not persuaded that either of the single-storey extensions, to the north or south, would in themselves result in unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the dwelling or its surroundings.

Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal as a whole would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (adopted December 2017), Policy RES10 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted June 2022) and Policy H4 of the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031 (adopted January 2018). Taken together, these policies expect new development to reflect or complement the design and materials of the existing dwelling, ensuring that the scale, height and form of extensions are in keeping with the host property and its surroundings, and require proposals to respond positively to local character.

The appellant refers to permitted development rights that would allow the dwelling to be painted in any colour, as well as possible extensions, and notes that materials could be controlled by condition. However, these matters do not address the fundamental concern that the proposal’s overall form, materials and detailing would be inappropriate. It is acknowledged that the Mansell v Tonbridge & [name] judgement confirms that there should be a “real prospect” of a fallback development being implemented and that the decision-maker should exercise their planning judgment as to whether that would be the case depending on the particular circumstances. In this case, the appellant has provided no substantive evidence, such as plans or an application for a certificate of lawfulness, to demonstrate any genuine likelihood that the suggested fallback would be pursued, nor that would it result in a comparable form of development. The absence of any clear prospect of implementation means the suggested fallback carries very limited weight and does not mitigate the harm identified.

I note the Council’s suggested design amendments and the appellants’ disagreement with them. However, as that alternative scheme is not before me, and no such amendments were incorporated during the application process, it would be inappropriate to comment on them within the scope of this appeal.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, worthy of sufficient weight, that would indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance therewith. The appeal is therefore dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR