Appeal 6003204

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for repositioned vehicular access, driveway and domestic garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref H16- 0887-25, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing number 2507-01-A.

The external materials of the garage hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

Prior to first use of the garage hereby approved, the existing access shall be stopped up in accordance with drawing number 2507-01-A.

Prior to first use of the garage hereby approved, full details of the beech hedgerow shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of densities of planting, sizes of plants and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. Thereafter, the hedgerow shall be planted during the first planting season following first use of the garage; and any plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The description of development in my decision above has been amended to reflect the plans which also show a repositioned access and driveway. The Council assessed it as such, so this approach does not prejudice any party.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling located on a residential crescent. Although the dwellings on [address] vary in design, they tend to be generously sized, two storeys in scale, of a similar material pallet and are set well back from the road. Frontage boundaries are typically formed by low walls, with hedgerows and occasional on-plot tree planting, including on the appeal site itself. These features combine to exude a suburban and spacious character and appearance.

Attached to the side of the appeal dwelling is a single storey flat roof off shoot which includes a single garage, accessed off a blocked paved driveway that provides parking for two cars. The proposed garage would be sited in front of this, set back from the roadside by around 1.7m, behind a new section of frontage wall and hedgerow.

Other than the boundary wall, the appeal site frontage is currently free of built development. The proposed garage, positioned forward of the dwelling, would introduce a change to the character and appearance of the area. However, its well‐considered design, that would respect the dwelling’s form, scale and materials, would ensure it reads as a subservient adjunct. Moreover, the staggered building line along the road, the garage’s set‐back from the boundary, and its relatively modest height would not dominate the frontage. These factors would limit its visual impact and help preserve the area’s open and spacious character.

I am cognisant of the previously dismissed appeal1 at this site. Full details are not before me. However, the evidence indicates that this was a different scheme that was larger in scale and closer to the roadside. Unlike in this appeal before me, there was no space for soft landscaping to assist in softening and partially screening the built form.

My attention has been drawn to properties said to be in the locale, that benefit from similar frontage garages. It is not clear where these are in comparison to the appeal site. Given they are likely to have different contexts, they have not been persuasive to my decision.

Taking the above matters into account, I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a modest change to the street’s composition. However, the sense of spaciousness would be largely preserved, and the proposed soft landscaping and set back position would assist in retaining its semi‐verdant character. I therefore conclude that the development would have an acceptable effect on the area’s character and appearance.

Accordingly, the proposal complies with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011–2036 (2019). Amongst other things these policies support sustainable development where the design is appropriate to the local context and character.

In addition to the standard time condition (No. 1), for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition (No. 2) requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan. 1 Appeal ref: APP/A2525/D/25/3360510

The plans lack detail regarding precise facing brickwork. [name]. 3 is therefore necessary to ensure that materials match the existing dwelling.

To ensure that the garage is adequately screened as advanced and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to require the existing access to be stopped up (condition No. 4) and for the beech hedge shown on plan to be implemented in a timely manner. The scheme lacks detail on planting densities and sizes, such that a condition (No. 5) is necessary to ensure it is delivered and established.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.