Appeal 6003895

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey extension side and rear extensions to existing garage at [site address] , Chippenham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/00485, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue relevant to the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal proposal seeks permission to extend an existing garage located to the rear of [site address] , which is accessed via [address]. The existing structure is a single-storey building constructed of reconstituted stone, with a concrete tiled roof and a green-painted garage door fronting the road.

The Conservation Area Description explains that the nucleus of the village developed to the east of the [name] and [name]. This historic core is characterised by its relatively wide [address], flanked by an irregular building line that is sometimes continuous but exhibits a wide variety of building styles and rooflines. The varied pattern of past development has resulted in a compact settlement with a distinctly Cotswold character. Buildings are predominantly 18th- and 19th-century cottages, generally two storeys in height, some with attic dormers, and typically constructed of random rubble stone. The traditional steeply pitched roofscape of Cotswold stone slates remains dominant, although clay tiles and Welsh slate replacements are also evident.

The siting of development within the village varies, with some buildings positioned directly on the pavement edge and others set back behind front gardens, which are often bounded by stone walls. A section of stone walling is located next to the appeal site. While there is variation in the design and scale of buildings, the consistent use of traditional materials is a notable characteristic that contributes to the character and appearance of the CA and, therefore, to its significance. Development is generally concentrated along [site address] , with smaller cul-de-sac roads extending from it. A village green lies close to the appeal site, and this, together with the churchyard, provides areas of openness that offer visual relief from the more densely developed village core.

Owing to the irregular form of development in this part of the village, garages, driveways, and other outbuildings are commonly located to the side or rear of properties, and the siting of the appeal garage reflects this pattern. However, the materials used in the construction of the existing garage differ from those traditionally associated with the CA. Although the building is modest in scale and permits views around it to the village green and churchyard, the use of non-traditional materials does not preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

The proposed garage extension would be similar in height to the existing structure but would increase the width and depth of it. Having regard to the predominantly two-storey scale of surrounding buildings and the irregularity in outbuilding size and siting, the scale and positioning of the extended garage would not appear out of character and would appear subordinate to the host dwelling. Furthermore, the replacement of the existing unsympathetic materials with a slate roof and timber cladding would give the building a more lightweight and temporary appearance, ensuring it would remain visually subservient to the surrounding stone buildings.

The proposal would necessitate the removal of a section of an existing stone wall, resulting in the loss of a positive feature that contributes positively to the character of the CA. However, gaps within stone boundary walls are not uncommon in the village and given that this relates only to a relatively small section within the wider CA, its loss would not significantly diminish the overall contribution made by stone walling to the area’s character. In addition, the scheme includes the construction of a new stone wall as part of re-profiling works, which would partially reinstate this characteristic feature that contributes towards the significance of the CA.

The extension would introduce a larger building in proximity to the village green; however, it would remain single storey and would be located toward the edge of this space. There are existing buildings around the perimeter of the village green, and views of built form from it are therefore not atypical. The modest scale of the proposal would ensure that the village green continues to function as an area of open space within the otherwise densely developed village and retaining its contribution towards the significance of the CA.

There are driveways within the CA that have a tarmac surface as is a nearby car park. The use of tarmac or asphalt for surfacing is therefore evident within the CA. In this context, the proposed asphalt surfacing to the frontage of the extended garage would not appear out of character. In addition, the local highways authority has advised that the driveway should be surfaced in the interests of highway safety.

Due to the choice of materials, the existing garage does not preserve the character or appearance of the CA, whereas the proposal due to its sympathetic choice of materials, as well as its scale and siting would conserve and preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. Therefore, the proposed development would comply with Policies CP57 and CP58 of the [name]. These seek, amongst other matters, for development to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment.

[site address] are part of a wider group of [name] listed buildings referred to as 86-891. They are a group of two storey terrace dwellings constructed from [name] with slate roofs. The architectural significance of the buildings comes from their consistent design and use of materials. The setting of the heritage asset takes in the irregularly designed but materialistically similar development in the CA and this includes the existing garage.

The proposal would be a modest addition to the garage and would replace the unsympathetic materials with those more appropriate within the wider CA. The modest scale of the extension and the choice of materials would also ensure it would remain subordinate to the host dwelling. In this regard, the extended garage would preserve the setting of the listed building.

The setting of the [name]* listed Church of St Michael2 includes the appeal garage as well as much larger built form. There are also several other listed buildings3 located around the church and churchyard which share a similar setting. The architectural details of the buildings contribute significantly towards the significance of them.

The immediate setting of the church and associated listed buildings is defined by the churchyard, enclosed by a stone boundary wall. Beyond this lies development within the CA, which varies in scale but maintains a broadly consistent palette of materials. These buildings contribute positively to the character and setting of the church and to each other through their interrelationship.

The existing garage already forms part of this wider setting, albeit located outside the churchyard. While the proposal would result in a larger structure, it would remain modest in scale and would not materially disrupt the spatial or visual relationships that contribute to the significance of the heritage assets. Furthermore, by replacing inappropriate materials with those more sympathetic to the CA, the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed buildings.

Concern has been raised regarding the potential for subsidence at 85a [site address] (No. 85a) arising from groundworks associated with the proposed development. The appeal site lies at a lower level than No. 85a, and the works would involve excavation. There were additional concerns related to the potential relocation of a utility pole and the possibility of resulting damage. However, the Council, including an officer from Building Control, reviewed the scheme and did not identify issues with the foundations. Furthermore, matters relating to the stability of adjoining land and the relocation of the utility pole will need to be assessed outside the planning process with some matters agreed between the parties involved and others potentially being subject to Building Regulations.

No. 85a is situated at a higher ground level than the appeal site, with the roof of the existing garage positioned significantly below the level of the nearest first-floor window, which serves a living room. The current outlook is over the garage roof, 1 [name] 1199225 2 [name]: 1283509 3 [name]: 1022339; 1199214; 1022337; 1363827; 1022338; 1363828; and 1199208. which does not appear overbearing, nor does it result in material overshadowing, given the separation distance.

Although the proposal would extend development closer to No. 85a, the height of the extended garage would be broadly comparable to the existing structure. Having regard to the difference in ground levels and the height of the extended garage, the proposal would not appear overbearing or result in undue loss of light to this room.

The Council’s Highway Engineer concluded that the development would not result in any adverse impact on highway safety or that the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The proposal relates to the extension of an existing garage serving a single dwelling and thus is likely already used on a regular basis by the occupiers of the dwelling. Any increase in vehicle movements associated with the development would therefore be minimal and would not significantly increase traffic. Considering the submitted evidence, I find no compelling reason to come to a different conclusion than the Council on this matter.

Furthermore, taking into account the limited size of the extension to the garage related to an existing dwelling the scheme would not result in a significant increase in noise or disturbance relative to the existing situation. Whilst there may be disruption during construction, this would be for a temporary period.

The Council’s Ecologist noted that whilst there was potential [name] (GCN) habitat nearby that this was separated from the site by hardstanding and a road and that there would be negligible risk of GCNs being present on the site. Based on the information before me and the garage’s location with regard to these habitats, I find no reason to come to a different conclusion on this matter.

The appeal site is located within [name] 1, which denotes an area of low probability of flooding. The Council has not raised concerns in respect of flood risk or the capacity of the existing drainage infrastructure. Taking into account the scale of the proposed garage extension, its location, and the absence of any technical evidence indicating either a risk of flooding at the site or insufficient capacity within the existing drainage infrastructure, there is no substantiated basis to conclude that the development would increase flood risk elsewhere or that the local drainage systems would be unable to accommodate it.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential use of the garage as a separate dwelling or for residential occupation. However, the appeal scheme relates solely to an extension to an existing garage, and the assessment must be based on the development as proposed rather than on speculative future uses, or work that may have been undertaken outside the scope of this appeal.

Each planning application must be determined on its individual merits. It is not evident that the approval of this proposal would establish a precedent for similar developments elsewhere, as site-specific considerations have been central to the assessment and are unlikely to apply uniformly across the area.

Further to the statutory commencement condition, a condition requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty.

Whilst not suggested by the Council, in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA, a condition requiring the materials used are those shown on the permitted plans is necessary.

Conditions requiring the visibility splays, the consolidated and surfaced driveway are installed before being brought into use is necessary in the interests of highway safety. Further conditions regarding the means to ensure surface water is avoided from entering the highway and to ensure it remains ungated are also necessary for similar reasons.

A condition requiring the utility pole is relocated is necessary in the interests of the highway safety, as is a condition controlling the gradient of the driveway.

A condition is also attached as it is necessary to provide certainty regarding the use of the extension, acknowledging its scale, siting and distance to the host dwelling. I have however, removed reference to the planning unit and this is a matter of fact and degree and has not necessarily been established in this instance.

The proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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 nos: A17 24 49 S01; A17 24 41 P03 [name]; A17 24 49 P01 [name]; and A17 24 41 P02 [name].

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no. A17 24 41 P03 [name].

No part of the development shall be first brought into use, until the visibility splays shown on drawing no. A17 24 49 P01 [name] have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 900 millimetres above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall always be maintained free of obstruction thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first brought into use until the whole of the driveway area, has been consolidated and surfaced (not loose stone or gravel). The access shall be maintained as such thereafter.

The development shall not be first brought into use until means/works have been implemented to avoid surface water from entering the highway.

The development shall not be first brought into use until the utility pole shown on drawing no. A17 24 41 P02 [name] has been relocated to a position a minimum of 1 metre from the vehicle access and driveway.

The gradient of the access hereby permitted shall not at any point be steeper than 1 in 6 metres from its junction with the public highway.

The vehicle access and parking spaces shall remain ungated.

The extension to the garage hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling, known at [site address] . End of Schedule