Appeal 6004091

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[name] comprises a cul-de-sac of detached dwellings with differing architectural styles, occupying broadly similar positions within their plots relative to adjoining neighbours. The buildings are arranged around a broad central turning area which provides generous separation between their open, partly grassed front gardens. These plots generally have driveways at their frontages, leading to either an integrated garage or a detached garage building positioned to the side, and behind front elevations. As a result of the layout of buildings and open space, the streetscene has a well-ordered and spacious character.

The appeal site is located at the end of this road and has an area of garden that projects forward of the building’s front elevation. The proposal would be sited within that area, introducing a single storey garage. The siting of the proposal forward of and detached from the appeal building would highlight its prominence in the streetscene, particularly when arriving into [name]. Here, the proposal’s front elevation would be perceived ‘head-on’ at a short range, rather than seen at angles like the front elevations of the dwellings surrounding it.

Generous space would be retained around the proposal within its plot and it would not obscure views of the building’s front elevation due to its position. Nevertheless, it would have a discordant relationship to the orderly siting pattern of dwellings and their ancillary buildings in this streetscene. This would also erode the pattern of open spaces and distances of separation between buildings, resulting in harm.

The proposal’s appearance, scale and roof form would resemble the detached garages at neighbouring sites, including at 6 [name], so its design would not be alien in this context. Its restrained fenestration, together with its limited scale and massing, would assist in it being read as an ancillary building related to the group of dwellings on this short cul-de-sac. The proposal’s intended function could also assist with reducing visual clutter in the streetscene. It would retain the open frontage and it is indicated that soft landscaping would be provided in the area to its rear and side. However, these factors would not overcome the harm arising from its incongruous siting. Likewise, whilst I note the support from a neighbour, the development would not improve the appearance of the area overall.

Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies CL1, CL2 and DD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023 to 2040 (2024). These policies, amongst other things, seek proposals to respect and enhance positive aspects of the existing character and distinctiveness of the site and wider area.

I am advised that the planning application followed refusal of an earlier proposal (Application ref CR/2022/0786/FUL), with the main difference being that the proposal before me is not as wide as the previous scheme. However, I have assessed the proposal based on the individual circumstances before me and this has not led me to an alternative conclusion.

The Council does not object to the principle of providing a garage, ancillary to the residential use, in this general location. I see no reason to disagree on this matter. The proposal would provide the appellant with additional parking spaces in a secure, weather-protected environment. However, there is no substantive evidence before me which indicates that local on-street parking availability is subject to significant pressure, nor that the proposal would have a significant beneficial impact on any pressure. Accordingly, these would largely be experienced as private benefits for the occupants of the site which carry very limited weight in favour of the proposal.

The Council did not identify harm to highways or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and I see no reason to disagree. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a benefit. Consequently, these matters weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.