Appeal 6003782

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2 no. new outbuildings in front garden at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02631/FHA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of the decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings PL/001, PL/002 and PL/003.

The external render of the buildings hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing dwelling.

No development above slab level on either of the buildings hereby approved shall take place until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all new planting; measures to ensure that the planting establishes; details of existing trees and hedgerows identifying those to be retained and measures for their protection throughout the course of development; and a programme of implementation.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details and the programme of implementation. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from 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 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. Appeal Planning Officer 6003782

Reference is made by the parties to fencing and existing structures within the frontage of the appeal property. However, these elements do not form part of the development for which permission is sought. Therefore, although I have noted their presence on site, they do not form part of the appeal before me.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling set back from the highway, with a spacious frontage. The surrounding area comprises a mix of detached and semi-detached properties which are also generally set back from the highway, albeit to a lesser extent. The frontage of the appeal property is defined by a well-established hedge and mature trees along one boundary and a close-boarded fence along the other, however it appears that the fence is unauthorised at this time.

The existing close-boarded fence on one side of the front boundary provides screening for the structures currently located behind it, which occupy a similar position to that proposed for Building No. 1 (as labelled on drawing PL/001). The proposed building would be slightly taller than these existing structures, albeit with a flat roof. However, as the fence is unauthorised and its retention cannot be guaranteed, I must assess the proposal on the basis that the fence may not be present in future.

In the absence of such screening, Building No. 1 would be highly visible and occupy a prominent position close to the highway. This would be at odds with the character of the area, where similar structures, such as the garage at [address], are screened by boundary treatments. In these circumstances, the proposed Building No. 1 would fail to integrate with the established streetscape and would harm the character and appearance of the area.

During the site visit, I observed some planting had taken place in front of the fence along this part of the boundary, however it had not yet reached a size where it would provide adequate screening if the fence were removed. Nevertheless, the harm identified from Building No.1 could be mitigated through appropriate landscaping in front of it, which could be secured by condition. Therefore, subject to such a condition, the proposed Building No.1 would respect the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed Building No. 2 would be largely screened by the existing vegetation and would not be readily visible from the road. While there are no plans to remove the hedgerow, the long-term retention of the hedgerow cannot be guaranteed. The building would nevertheless still benefit from screening provided by the mature trees and the adjacent neighbouring dwelling on this side of the frontage. The Council could, if necessary, seek to protect the trees along this boundary, which would provide significant screening when approaching the site in that direction. Therefore, even if the hedge were removed in future, Building No 1 would still benefit from adequate screening. Appeal Planning Officer 6003782

The existing fencing would offer only limited additional screening, given the position of Building No. 2, and its removal or retention would not significantly alter the level of visibility of that building. Accordingly, Building No 2 would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons, overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy 2006-2031 (2013) (the [name]) which require development to preserve and integrate with the streetscape character.

As the Council has noted, the size and width of the existing vehicular access would remain unchanged as a result of the proposal. While it is unclear whether the existing close-boarded fencing on either side of the access may affect visibility for vehicles exiting the site, these fences do not form part of the appeal before me. The proposed outbuildings would not materially affect visibility or safe use of the vehicular access.

Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not harm highway safety and therefore would not conflict with policy CS12 of the [name] or Saved policy 51 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 – 2011 (2004) which together require development to have no significant impact on safety implications and to provide safe and satisfactory means of access for all users.

In addition to the condition discussed, I recommend conditions in relation to commencement of development and requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. Matching external materials are necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has suggested a condition to secure alterations to the existing fencing, however, as this element does not form part of the appeal, it would be neither necessary nor reasonable to impose such a condition.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.