Appeal 6006933

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is located in a rural location outside of any defined settlement. The appeal property is a large-detached dwelling with a white rendered finish located at the end of a lengthy private drive. The appeal property is well screened from public vantage points by extensive tree coverage. There is an existing detached garage located adjacent to the main dwelling house. This garage is constructed in red brick and has an open frontage and has the appearance of a typical rural building.

The appeal scheme proposes the demolition of the existing garage and replacement with a larger garage building that would be linked to the main house. The building would be constructed in a mix of brick and black cladding with a tiled roof. The proposed structure would be split over 3 storeys, although the basement level would not be visible externally.

Whilst the replacement building would not encroach into the surrounding agricultural land, it would be notably larger than the existing garage in terms of both footprint and scale. The footprint of the replacement building would be comparable to the footprint of the main dwelling. The increased massing would visibly compete with the main dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would not be subservient to the host building. It would appear as an overly dominant and obtrusive addition. The new structure would give the impression of a new dwelling rather than a rural outbuilding. This would be emphasised by features such as the large chimney and rear terrace. In particular, the large, stepped rear terrace would have a materially harmful urbanising appearance in this rural setting as it would not reflect the simple form of typical rural outbuildings. Whilst no concerns are raised over the choice of materials, the replacement garage building is neither of an appropriate scale or complementary design in relation to the existing dwelling.

The appellant has highlighted that views of the replacement building would be minimal from public vantage points. However, a reduced level of public visibility does not avoid the need to achieve good design. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.

The appeal scheme also seeks the removal of two mature trees located to the west of the site to facilitate the development. These trees form part of a larger tree group which have visual amenity value. However, given the extensive tree coverage around the site, it is not considered that the loss of these two trees would be perceptible in the wider context. Consequently, the tree loss would not harm the visual appearance of the site.

For these reasons, although the proposed removal of the two trees would not result in material harm to visual amenity, the replacement building would nevertheless cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore conflict with [name]/1 and H/13 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (SCLP) (September 2018), which, amongst other matters, require development to achieve high‐quality design that preserves local character and ensures that extensions are in scale and character with the host dwelling. Given my finding on tree removal, the proposal would not conflict with Policy NH/2 of the SCLP, which requires the protection of important landscape features, as the limited loss identified would not undermine the wider landscape resource.

The appellant has placed weight placed on the emerging Framework. However, the draft Framework has not been adopted and there is no firm date yet as to when this will happen. Furthermore, it is unclear how much the document will change prior to its adoption. In this context no meaningful weight can be placed on the emerging Framework.

I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.