Appeal 6006921

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and area.

The appeal site is located on a lane to the rear of properties on [address]. The lane provides access to the rear of the dwellings, parking spaces and garages/outbuildings. The outbuildings vary in terms of set back from the lane, scale, height, materials and appearance. The character and appearance of the lane is of a residential back lane which includes outbuildings of various scale and appearance.

The existing garage on the appeal site is a small low garage constructed of concrete panels with sheet metal doors. It has a worn and tired appearance with limited aesthetic merit. It contributes neutrally to the character and appearance of the back lane.

While there is significant variation in the scale, character and appearance of outbuildings on the lane, the scale of the proposal far exceeds all of them. It would be approximately twice as wide and significantly higher than any existing outbuilding. It would dominate nearby outbuildings and look incongruous. Consequently, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant considers that the development is in keeping with the character of the lane, due to the variety in appearance of existing outbuildings, which is covered above. Also, that the scale of the proposal would be in keeping with development at the rear of 135 and [address]. The scale of the proposal would far exceed either of these two outbuildings, being significantly higher and wider. The appeal site is wider than either of these two plots, but even if the two existing outbuildings were considered together, the proposal would be significantly greater in scale and massing and would appear incongruous. The two existing outbuildings are separated and are set further back from the lane than the proposal. Further, the outbuilding at 135 is set back than 136 such that they do not appear as a single mass. Each existing outbuilding has a pitched roof such that there is significant space between the two outbuildings at roof level. For these reasons the two outbuildings do not appear as a single mass. The proposal would significantly exceed the height, scale and massing of the two existing outbuildings when considered together.

The appellant considers that the height of the proposal, which is significantly higher than the maximum guidance provided in the Swindon Borough Council Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, 2011, is justified because it is proposed to install solar panels on the roof of the proposal and join the Government’s Smart Export Guarantee Scheme in keeping with the Swindon Plan 2024-27 to “enable a lower carbon Swindon through planning and travel” and this has dictated the proposed height of the roof. This consideration does not justify the harm identified.

The existing garage at the appeal site is of little architectural merit and the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host building. The appellant considers the proposed development, which would replace the existing aging and graffitied garage and the badly damaged parking surface, would result in a visual improvement. However, a development of the scale proposed, which I have concluded is harmful, is not necessary to achieve this benefit.

While the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host building it would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SD1 and DE1 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan (2015) which require development to respect, conserve or enhance the existing built environment.

The appellant states that he has improved the site, providing safer habitats for wildlife and managed vegetation to improve light to neighbouring properties. However, these improvements are not related to the proposed development and do not weigh in favour of the appeal.

The appellant also states that the proposal would enable the occupants to store and maintain cars and cycles and to undertake exercise and relax. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the scheme is the only way to achieve that. This matter has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole 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.