Appeal 6003110

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the detached garage within the frontage garden of the dwelling. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension with external raised decking to the rear and re-roofing work and new rooflights introduced to the front elevation roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0558 so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and 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 following drawings insofar as they relate to the single storey side extension with external raised decking to the rear and re-roofing work and new rooflights introduced to the front elevation roof only: elevations, block plan and floor plan.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials stated on the application form.

The raised decking to the rear hereby permitted shall not be first used until details of the proposed privacy screen have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include materials, specification and dimensions. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the decking to the rear hereby permitted and retained thereafter.

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.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the Lambley Village Conservation area (CA).

The appeal site comprises a bungalow and garden situated at the end of a small residential cul de sac that has low boundary treatments. The property is bordered by the [name] to the side and rear which is a large green space. There are therefore clear views of the green [name] and the trees beyond at the end of [address] and between some of the properties. The space also forms and is within the boundary to the CA. Land levels slope down from the site towards [address]. All of these factors combine to create a pleasant sense of spaciousness and rurality around the site.

The significance of the CA is derived, in part, from its rural and agricultural setting. The Lambley Pingle is a green space within the CA at the heart of the village and has both archaeological and spatial importance. Its expansiveness and openness emphasise the above experience of the appeal site and its relationship to the edge and thus setting of the CA. The end of [name] and the point of the appeal site particularly, and the undeveloped and open feel of its frontage, allows clear and uninterrupted views across the [name], into the older parts of the village.

The garage would be positioned in front of the low picket fence on the opposing side boundary and would partly block the views towards the [name] and the CA. This would be exacerbated by the land levels of the site where the appeal property stands on higher ground. The proposal would also unacceptably erode the spaciousness that is experienced from within [address] and would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed garage and extension would be visible from within the [name] and there would be some glimpses of the structures from [address] due to the high land levels of the appeal site. However, there are several properties that are positioned alongside the [name] including some examples of larger properties with gable ends. The addition of a small extension and garage within the confines of the appeal site would therefore not detract from the significance or setting of the CA or views through the [name] from this direction. The large open nature and contribution that the land makes to the CA would be retained.

The proposed extension and raised decking area would be positioned to the side and rear of the existing building and would be of a fairly modest size. The extension would be in line with the existing rear wall of the property, and the decking would only extend out marginally further. Given its position and relatively small size combined with the use of matching materials, the extension and external decking area would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, nor would they cause harm to the significance of the CA. The same can be said for the installation of 3 rooflights in the front elevation of the property. This is the same conclusion that the Council came to on these matters.

Nevertheless, as identified above, the proposed garage would cause harm to the significance of the CA, namely views of it from an elevated vantage point and a place forming its immediate setting. Due to the scale of the development in context, the harm would be less than substantial. As directed by paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), the harm identified will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. No public benefits have been advanced, only a private benefit that would allow the appellant’s dependents to live in the same property. Therefore, in accordance with the Framework the harm I have found would not be outweighed.

The proposed garage would therefore not meet the requirements of Policies 10 and 11 of the Broxtowe Borough Gedling Borough Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan 2014 and Policies LPD26, LPD28 and LPD43 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan 2018 (LP) which are concerned with development not harming important views into the CA amongst other things. However, for the reasons set out above, the proposed extension, raised decking, re-roofing work and rooflights would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area or the significance of the CA. These aspects would therefore meet the requirements of the aforementioned policies.

The view from [address] may not be within the CA appraisal as a key view and vista but that does not negate its importance to the character and appearance of the area or the setting of the CA from the appeal site. The parking of cars in a similar position is not comparable to the proposed garage given the permanent and solid structure of the proposal.

There may have been a previous planning permission for similar development, but this lapsed some considerable time ago without being commenced and was a decision taken by the Council. Any concern with a change in decision would be for the Council to address as the decision maker at that time. The same can be said for any alternative schemes that could be submitted to the Council however without amending the proposed position of the garage on the frontage, any future scheme may still have very similar effects as the appeal development.

The living conditions of the occupants of [address] would not be harmed as a result of the proposal given the location of the extension, its single storey nature and the proposed height of the privacy screen that would only cover a small proportion of the boundary with the neighbour. This is the same conclusion that the Council came to on this matter.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty as far as they relate to the aspect being approved. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to materials to be as per the application form is necessary. No specific details for the privacy screen have been provided and in both the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbours, a condition is necessary to secure the details of materials and specification along with ensuring it is erected prior to the decking being brought into first use.

The aspects of the development identified above are clearly severable. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed in part and allowed in part.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the garage and allowed as far as it relates to the remainder of the works. The planning permission granted is subject to the conditions set out above.