Appeal 6002529

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the area.

This part of [address] is characterised by a diverse range of detached and attached dwellings occupying a variety of sized plots. This together with the varied building lines and gaps between buildings; boundary hedges; grass verges; mature landscaped gardens; absence of street lights; and edge of settlement location, contributes to the spacious; informal; verdant and semi-rural character and appearance of the street scene.

Both to the north and south of the appeal site there are a number of outbuildings and garages of different heights and sizes. Most of them are located to the side of the host dwellings, with some projecting forward of the host dwelling. Whilst a few outbuildings are sited in front of dwellings they typically relate to older rural properties on the edge of the built-up area or are very modest in height and form.

The appeal property occupies a prominent position within the street scene, on a straight section of the road and opposite the open junction area with Kenyons. The appeal dwelling is set back from the street behind a generous sized front garden that is enclosed by hedges and includes an area of lawn to the front of the dwelling.

[name], which rises to the west, there are views of the appeal site and the front elevation of the appeal dwelling, which comprises and imposing and attractive older dwelling. From the west side of [address] the upper part of the appeal dwelling is visible through and over the front boundary hedge and from the site crossover.

Together and amongst other things policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and sites 2015-2034 (LPSS) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), seek to ensure that new development achieves high quality design and responds to distinctive local character. It should respond to and reinforce locally distinct patterns of development including landscape setting. Paragraph 131 of the Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Being clear about design expectations is essential for achieving this.

Policy WH2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2016–2033 (NP), states that where adjoining boundaries of the built-up area of the village the emphasis will be on helping to maintain the transitional edge of the village and local character. Buildings should be of good design, use high quality materials and be sympathetic to their surroundings. Parking provision should not overly dominate the street scene and garages should be visually subservient to the host dwelling. East of [address] buildings should conform to the existing stronger building lines and building heights and form.

Section 3.5 of the Guildford Borough Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), advises that garages should be sited to the side or rear of the property. Where they would be in highly prominent locations which sit to the front of the building line and/or take up a disproportional amount of the garden new garages will not be accepted. Garages should be constructed from materials that match the host dwelling.

As stated in section 1.1 of the SPD, the guidance in the SPD cannot reflect all individual situations, but should be taken into account. Also, that all schemes will be assessed on their individual merits. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Having regard to the size of the front garden the proposed garage would not take up a disproportionate amount of the original garden of the host property. The materials to be used would not match those of the host dwelling. Instead, the design of the proposed garage reflects a traditional cart barn, with timber boarded walls under a plain clay tiled roof. In this respect it would be reflective of other outbuildings visible within the street scene.

There would be ample room for on-site turning and parking to serve the dwelling. Also, in view of the distance between the proposed garage and the adjacent dwellings to the north and south it would not have a material impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of those dwellings. The above factors weigh in favour of the proposal.

However, the proposed garage would be sited close to the front and northern side boundaries of the appeal site, directly in front and some 5.85 metres from the host dwelling. Due to its siting, depth, height and bulk, including the proposed dormer windows, the proposed garage would be prominent in views over and to a lesser extent through the existing hedge from the street scene. It would obstruct views of the host dwelling and would unacceptably intrude into and detract from the setting of the host dwelling and the open and spacious character of this part of [address] and Kenyons.

This harm would outweigh both the absence of harm noted in paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision and the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the proposed outbuilding. This is not something that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

Finally, in their reason for refusal the council has referred to policies D5 and H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies 2023. However, as these policies specifically refer to extensions and protecting the living conditions of residents, they are not directly relevant to the council’s reason for refusing planning permission.

I conclude that the proposed garage would unacceptably detract from the host property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, it conflicts with LPSS Policy D1, NP Policy WH2, Paragraph 135 of the Framework and the objectives of the SPD.