Appeal 6004077

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

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

[site address] is a two storey, detached dwelling with a generous frontage which includes a large driveway. The appeal property, consistent with other dwellings along the street, is set back from the highway. Aside from typical boundary fencing and hedging, I observed limited examples of built structures positioned directly adjacent to the front boundaries that separate properties from the highway along [address].

The proposal would have a long rectangular footprint as the plans show that it will provide 3 car port spaces and a garden store. The elevation that sits adjacent to the highway would consist of ‘timber effect boarding’ and would have minimal set in from the boundary. Its footprint and height, inclusive of the hipped tile roof, would introduce an uncharacteristically large structure positioned immediately alongside the front boundary. Due to the combined effect of its size and its siting, it would appear uncharacteristically prominent within the street scene. It would not reflect the established pattern or character of development in the surrounding area.

The cited examples differ materially from the circumstances of the appeal site. No [address] has only two bays, rather than the four which this proposal has. That structure is far less prominent than the proposal before me. [name] [address], the garage stands to the side of the dwelling. Again, it is only two bays wide, rather than four. Although it stands forward of the neighbouring property to the rear, its relationship with that property is less direct than in this case. The garage at [address] is attached to the side of the host dwelling rather than stood in front of it, as in this case. That garage stands closer to the road than the house, but the house fronts at ninety degrees to the road, rather than fronting it directly, as in this case.

[name] 8 and [address] are located on an A-road, a primary route into [name], and therefore experience greater visibility than this quieter residential location, the development at those sites maintain a sufficient degree of set-back from the adjacent highway, which is not present within the appeal scheme. The structures appear to be only 2 bays wide as opposed to the four in this proposal.

The newer residential properties further along [address] exhibit a different character and arrangement, but they retain a meaningful set-back from the highway, and their garages are behind the front building line rather than in front of it. I have not been provided with any details of the circumstances which may have led to the approval of these examples of garages. On the evidence before me, they are not comparable, and there are no parallels to influence my findings above.

The appellant states that they are willing to move the ‘cart shed’ back by 600mm to allow planting of a laurel hedge along the north boundary. However, no amended plans have been provided to demonstrate this revised siting. In any case, the boundary in front of the house is wide and open. The prominence of the structure and its harm would be clearly visible despite plants screening its flank by the boundary.

I conclude that the combined effects of the proposal’s size and siting would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to policies LP18 and LP21 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 and Policy H5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2036 Review made January 2023 which require that garages are not prominently sited, and that proposals respond sensitively to the context and character of places in [name] by ensuring that their layout and scale enhance the quality of the environment.

I have considered the appellant’s personal preferences and the potential for local employment. However, given the small-scale of the scheme, and that the benefits would be limited to the occupants of the dwelling, these factors do not outweigh the identified harm.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.