Appeal 6006203

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene and the area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house of two storeys and a rendered exterior, built in the 1950’s within a row of similar properties in a village location and just outside the Chesterton Conservation Area (CA). The dwellings have an arts and crafts style with steeply pitched sloping roofs and dormers. They are set back from the road with wide frontages with most dwellings having generous front gardens. Some of those are enclosed by hedges along the frontage but the appeal site has a more open aspect with a low brick boundary wall and fence. Opposite are historic, stone built cottages that lie within the CA and are sited adjacent or close to the footway.

The proposed double garage would be positioned close to the front boundary with doors in its side elevation facing onto the drive. It would be clearly seen in views along the road in both directions. The Council has objected to the siting of a garage in this location and whilst I noted that the guidance in its ‘[name] and [name] (2007) advises generally against garages to the front of properties, the size and scale of the front garden here together with the presence of buildings opposite that are sited close to the footway, means that a garage could be accommodated here without causing significant harm to the street scene. I find, therefore, that the proposed siting would be acceptable in principle.

The appeal dwelling has been previously extended to the side with a two storey extension and has a wide, double fronted front elevation. The width of the garage would be approximately half that of the front elevation of the dwelling and it would be significantly lower than the height of the two storey dwelling. As such, its size and scale would not overly dominate the dwelling or the street scene.

My concerns relate to the design of the garage, however. This is a traditional, village setting and the proposal makes no attempt to reflect the style of the appeal dwelling or its setting. Its form does not reflect the steeply sloping pitched roof of the dwelling and the shallower pitch would be at odds with this and those of the surrounding dwellings in this row and opposite. Neither is there any attempt to reflect the traditional details of the surrounding area, such as overhanging eaves. The proposed materials of red brick walls and red concrete tiles would contrast starkly with the muted tones of the honey coloured stone that predominates in the cottages opposite and with the cream or grey rendered houses and darker tiles within this row. Although they would reflect the red brick of the boundary wall and a neighbouring outbuilding, those are not characteristic of the surrounding area. I have noted that there is space to incorporate some planting that could soften the appearance of the garage and enhance the street scene but that would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm that would arise from the poor design.

I find then, that by reason of its design, the proposed garage would significantly harm the character and appearance of the street scene and the area. It would conflict the development plan policies ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 which together seek to ensure that new development complements and enhances the character of its context through high quality design.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed.