Appeal 6003890

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garage store at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2025/0388, dated 17/08/2025, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan 1001-A-150; proposed detached garage 1001-A-250 [name]; and proposed roof plan 1001-A-251 [name].

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

An application for costs was made by Glover/Norton against North Warwickshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

I observed on my site visit that the garage had been partially constructed with the majority of brick work completed but neither the doors nor roof had been fitted. It is my understanding that building works have paused to allow for the determination of this appeal. The appeal will be determined on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of [address] with regards to outlook

The appeal site is located within a new residential development consisting of 6 detached dwellings, some of which have detached garages. This is a gated development accessed via a lengthy driveway.

The partially constructed appeal scheme is located adjacent to an existing garage towards the western end of this new residential development. Whilst the building has a notable footprint, the height of the building would be kept to a minimum through the use of a flat roof, thereby reducing its overall bulk. By virtue of the length of the access drive, views of the garage are limited from the nearest public vantage points on [address]. The character impact of the garage is therefore very localised to within [address] itself.

Outbuildings are a common feature within [address], although they all have pitched roofs. However, this would not mean that a different roof design, in this case a sloping flat roof, would necessarily be harmful. The alternative roof design would add variety and visual interest to the street scene. Furthermore, on my site visit I could see that the use of a matching brick has helped to ensure that the development complements the surrounding built form. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not appear incongruous in its setting.

I understand that the area where the partially constructed garage is sited was intended to be laid out as an area of soft landscaping as part of the earlier approval for the housing development. The loss of this modest area of green space does not fundamentally change the setting of the appeal site within [address]. Properties within the cul-de-sac primarily have soft landscaping areas within rear gardens with hard landscaped areas to the front to provide parking.

I conclude that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with policy LP30 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan (NWLP) and Policy DN8 of the Dordon Neighbourhood Plan. Amongst other things, these policies seek to secure a high quality design for new development that in terms of its layout, form and density should respect and reflect the existing pattern, character and appearance of its setting.

The garage is sited adjacent to the boundary with [address]. Given the siting and orientation of No 172, there are views from the lounge windows towards the garage. Whilst this is quite a close relationship, the garage has a modest height that would only just be perceptible above the existing boundary fence once the garage is complete. Furthermore, the impact is diminished further as the partially constructed garage is sited on lower land levels than No 172. On this basis the proposal would not notably alter the outlook experienced from the lounge or garden and consequently could not be considered overbearing. There is also planting present in front of the boundary fence softening any limited impact. In this context it is not considered that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 172 in terms of outlook. It is pertinent that the Guide to the Design of [name] states that outbuildings are best sited as inconspicuously as possible, so as not to have a harmful effect on neighbours. I am satisfied that the appeal scheme is in accordance with this guidance.

I conclude that the proposals would have no adverse impact on the living conditions of No 172. This accords with policy LP30 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan which amongst other matters requires developments to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The occupiers of No 172 have raised concerns over a potential loss of light. As discussed previously, only a very minor proportion of the garage would be visible above the boundary fence. It is also important to note that the lounge within No 172 has a dual aspect. In addition to the windows on the rear, the lounge has glazed doors on the front elevation that provides a view into the conservatory, which provides a secondary source of light. On this basis the development would not fundamentally alter the amount of daylight or sunlight experienced within either the lounge or garden of No 172.

Concerns have been raised over the future use of the garage. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the garage would be used for anything other than personal storage by the occupiers of [site address] . Any commercial use would be in breach of this decision and would be a matter for the local planning authority.

Representations have been received suggesting that the plans do not reflect what has been partially constructed on site. I can confirm that this appeal has been assessed on the basis of the submitted plans and the development should be implemented in accordance with those plans.

As the development has already commenced a standard time limit condition is not required. I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a matching materials condition to ensure that the garage complements the existing dwelling.

I conclude that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.