Appeal 6001755

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

[site address] is a detached property set back from the road. It extends across the width of the plot with only a side access gate to the rear. The large frontage area is elevated from the road level with a retaining wall and fencing to the front boundary. To the side boundary (west) is high hedging screening the neighbouring bungalow.

The proposed garage would be sited along this western side, perpendicular to the house. Part of the garage building would be an open lean-to store, nonetheless, it would have a large footprint, and due to its height, dominant roofscape with dormer windows and an external staircase, it would have a domesticated appearance.

While the design reflects the general style and materials of the host property, [site address] exhibits a cottage appearance, with dormers set below the eaves line. The garage would be prominently sited in front and would lack the subservience of an ancillary building.

Garages to other properties in the locality, where they do occur, are mainly located to the side or rear. A garage in a forward position further along [address] has been drawn to my attention, however this is more limited in height, with no first floor, and is associated with a large, three-storey property. There are other buildings positioned close to the road, particularly to the east, although the part of [address] beyond [address] has a tighter urban grain. With the exception of [address], the appeal property forms part of a row of properties set back from the road with a more open and verdant character.

The garage would be screened in some views along [address] by [address] and the existing hedging, although the height and the presence of hedging cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, due to its height, scale, and elevated position above the road, the garage would be visually imposing and out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development.

[address] is a [name] listed building. While not directly identified as a reason for refusal, I have a duty imposed by Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. [address] is a two-storey double-gabled building and is a prominent feature along [address], in part due to its proximity to the road, which contrasts with its neighbours. The garage would be similarly aligned, although positioned on the other side of the appeal site. Having regard to the separation and the village location, I do not find that the proposed development would be directly harmful to the setting of the listed building.

Notwithstanding this, the proposed development would fail to integrate with the street scene and would not reflect the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016 -2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy for the New Forest District outside the New Forest National Park (Local Plan) which requires all development to achieve high quality design that contributes positively to local distinctiveness, and enhances the character and identity of the locality.

The appellant advises that there is no other location within the site for garaging, and the upper floor is to be used for storage only. There is also support for the development from the immediate neighbours. I recognise that the garage would provide more security for vehicles and storage for bikes and other household equipment. In addition, conditions could control the use of the building and secure further landscaping. These conditions would not, however, overcome the concerns in relation to the visual impact of the scale and form of the building, and the property has recently been extended. [name] understand the appellant’s desire for garaging and storage, these matters do not alter my assessment of the proposal in relation to the development plan.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.