Appeal 6003833

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of rear detached garage and conservatory and erection of two-storey rear extension, raised front terrace and front detached garage at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref 25/01342/S73, without compliance with condition number 1 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 22/00927/FUL dated 25 July 2022 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos J413 - 10-01 – Existing plans & elevations, J413 - 15-01 – Proposed plans and elevations, 2025-04-01-101 – Garage elevations.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows shall be inserted into the east and west-facing side elevations of the rear extension hereby permitted.

Within 3 months of the date of this decision details of the facing render for the walls of the garage hereby permitted shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved render shall be applied to the walls of the garage within 6 months of the date of the local planning authority’s approval, and shall be retained thereafter.

The appellant has applied to vary Condition 1 with the intention that amended drawings are substituted for those originally approved. The proposed amendments are described by the appellant as a change to the garage roof design from a single GRP roof to a double pitched slate roof.

It was apparent at my site visit that works to construct a garage had commenced on site, up to and including the roof. There is common ground between the main parties that this development, to the extent it has been constructed, is as per the plans before me. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the change to the garage roof design, to that previously permitted, on the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling, No [site address] .

No [site address] is a 2 storey gambrel roofed dwelling sitting within an eclectic row of detached and semi-detached dwellings set back and elevated above road level. The frontages are characterised by retaining walls faced in brick or render. During my site visit I noted that the dual carriageway width of the road meant that views of the appeal site, including the garage under assessment and the neighbouring properties, were readily available. From these vantage points it was clear that the dual pitched roof of the garage extended above the frontage retaining wall, the appeal site’s front garden level, and that of the neighbouring properties’ garden levels either side.

There were no other examples evident of outbuildings in front gardens with dual pitched roofs within the streetscene of this part of [address]. A detached outbuilding was visible within the garden of No 134. This had a monopitched roof and was elevated significantly above road level. However, it benefited from being largely screened from view by vegetation.

Nevertheless, the eclectic character of the streetscene, with dual pitched roofs being more of a prevailing feature than monopitches, would mean that the garage as proposed in its finished state would not appear incongruous or out of character with either the surrounding area or the host dwelling. This finding is subject to the walls being finished in the proposed render rather than the construction left in its current blockwork state.

At the time of my site visit, the garage also appeared subservient in both volume and height to the host dwelling, the latter occupying significantly elevated land to the rear. Much of the garage’s mass was contained within excavated ground below garden level. Although its siting itself was not subservient, that relationship is identical to the arrangement already permitted. None of these characteristics or their effects would alter were the garage to be completed in accordance with the plans before me.

For these reasons, I conclude that the change to the garage roof design, to that previously permitted, would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling, No [site address] . It would therefore accord with policy DEV20 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 (PSWJLP). This policy seeks to ensure good standards of design with development proposals having proper regard to the pattern of local development in terms of, amongst other things, visual impact, scale, massing, height and style. In reaching this finding, I have had regard to the provisions of the Plymouth and South West Devon Supplementary Planning Document 2020 (SWDSPD) specifically paragraph 13.76’s guidance that garages in sloping front gardens may be allowed if the majority of the garage can be built into the garden.

An interested party at No [address] has raised concerns in relation to the visual impact of the garage, specifically its effect on their living conditions. The roof of the garage is already in place including the slate covering. It would be visible from No 132’s front garden and from the front rooms of this neighbouring dwelling. However, the majority of the mass is below the ground level of No 132’s garden. Furthermore, the roof is covered in a slate that visually assimilates with the existing wall facings, roof coverings and hard landscaping found in the area. Therefore, I find that the effect of the garage on future occupiers of No 132’s living conditions, in terms of outlook, would be negligible.

There is no dispute between the parties in relation to the acceptability of the extension element of the proposal when assessed against the provisions of the development plan. The Council’s approval was subject to a condition in relation to permitted development rights needing to be restricted for additional windows on the side elevations of the proposed rear extension. This is in the interests of the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwellings on either side of the appeal site, specifically in relation to privacy. I have no evidence before me to disagree with the main parties on this matter.

Finally, an interested party raises concerns that the excavations that have been undertaken as part of the garage construction have resulted in their boundary now not being full protected. This is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal, and I also note that the same excavations were proposed for the existing permission.

The development permitted by permission 22/00927/FUL has commenced and I have therefore not reimposed the commencement condition. In light of my findings on the appeal, condition 1 shall be amended to reflect the updated suite of approved plans associated with the revised scheme, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also reimposed the condition restricting permitted development rights for the reasons I have already detailed in this decision. I have omitted the tailpiece from the condition relating to the Council’s approval as this would circumvent the statutory routes to vary conditions, depriving third parties of the opportunity to comment.

The plans before me indicate that the garage’s existing blockwork is to be finished with render. As no such requirement formed part of the original permission, a new condition (No 3) is now imposed to secure the submission, approval and implementation of the details for this facing render, in order to make the development acceptable in respect of the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling. There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of this outstanding matter before the development takes place.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed.