Appeal 6006530

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the proposed developments effect on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The proposal is for detached double garage located in front of the existing dwelling. [site address] and the surrounding area comprise a range of architectural styles. The proposed garage would be located further back from the highway than the front of the neighbouring [address]. This would align with advice within paragraph 8.12 of the Design Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (the SPD) with respect to development not being located forward of the established building line.

Paragraph 6.26 and 6.27 of the SPD advises garages should be designed to ensure they do not dominate the property or street scene, and that for garages located in front of the principal elevation, the buildings frontage needs to be sufficiently wide and deep to not impact the setting of the dwelling and the character and appearance of the street scene. The majority of the proposed garage would be located directly in front of the principal elevation of the existing dwelling. Considering the width and depth of the building frontage, and the size and scale of the proposed garage, it would obscure a considerable section of the front of the house and consequently dominate its front elevation. Due to its siting this would cause harm to the street scene and be in conflict with the SPD. I appreciate the footprint of the garage is a relatively standard size for a double garage, however this does not mean it would be appropriate for all locations.

The garage would use architectural styles found in the locality, its entrance would be located 90 degrees to the host dwellings front elevation, there would be no gable elevation facing the highway, and matching materials would be utilised in accordance with the SPD. Nevertheless, these factors would not sufficiently mitigate the harm identified, due to the size and positioning of the proposal in relation to the scale of the building’s frontage.

I appreciate there is an existing hedgerow which is proposed to be retained; nonetheless the garage would still be visible from the public domain on a range of angles. Considering the proximity of the proposed garage it has also not been demonstrated it could be retained following the construction of the proposal. As such I am not satisfied this would help screen the proposed development moving forward.

I acknowledge the appellant has provided a range of examples of development where garages have been located forward of the principal elevation, and they have argued this sets a precedent. The Design SPD nevertheless clearly gives circumstances to which garages can be found acceptable forward of the principal elevation of a dwelling; however, the proposed design does not meet that criteria and consequently I find the proposal would be harmful to the street scene. Of the examples raised where the decision notice and plans have been provided, I note all but one predate the publication of the [name]. Though the [name] does not form part of the development plan, it is a material consideration and does provide advice on what is considered good design for development on which to base assessment of such sites.

Though the garage examples provided with additional details all sit at least partially in front of the principal elevation of their host dwelling, they are all of more sympathetic design to the layout of their respective plots, which is not the case with the appeal proposal. As such they have a different relationship to their surroundings and are materially different to the current appeal proposal. The other garages highlighted by the appellant are indicated as being determined prior to the current development plan being adopted, therefore they were determined during a different planning regime. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

I conclude the proposed development would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. As such the proposal would be in conflict with Policy N1 of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2014, which seeks high design standards including taking into account local character and context. The proposal would also conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which advises development should add to the quality of the area, be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout and be sympathetic to the local built environment.

The appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s behaviour during the course of the application process, however that is a dispute to be resolved between the parties outside of this appeal. The appellant has also stated they would be willing to accept amendments to the proposed design; nonetheless, I must determine the appeal on the based on the plans before me.

No unacceptable harm has been identified in relation to neighbouring amenity and highway safety; however, these matters are a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal. Though the principle of development is acceptable in this location, this does not outweigh the conflict with the development plan, which includes the harm identified to the character and appearance of the street scene.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan, and there are no material considerations raised, including the Framework, which would outweigh that harm. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.