Appeal 6007517

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached three bay garage with usable loft space, at [site address] , Boxley [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/502108/FULL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: BJC/001, BJC/002, existing and proposed block plans at a scale of 1:500 and a location plan at a scale of 1:1250.

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials details of which are given on the application form.

No development above slab level shall take place until details of a scheme for the enhancement of ecology on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consist of the enhancement of ecology through integrated methods into the fabric of the building by means such as swift bricks, bat tubes and bee bricks, and through the provision within the application site of measures such as bird and bat boxes, bug hotels, log piles, planting which favours pollinators and hedgehog gaps/corridors. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the building hereby permitted and all features shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter. The details shall include sufficient information to assess the proposed measures including as necessary elevations, floorplans, block plans showing siting and specification/ manufacturers details.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the locality.

The Council’s Residential Extensions, Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2009, states that “Garages and other outbuildings should be subservient in scale and position to the original dwelling and not impact detrimentally on the space surrounding buildings or the street scene by virtue of their scale, form or location”.

The new outbuilding would have a rectangular footprint while that of the host dwelling is ‘L’ shaped. It is clear from the proposed block plan that this area of the new structure would be noticeably less than that of the associated house. The new building would be less than 6m in height to the ridge and single storey below the eaves. Moreover, the proposal concerns a detached dwelling with split levels so that there are three storeys at the front and four at the rear, with the uppermost at the front and back being in the roof space. As a result, it is a fairly imposing structure that would be significantly taller than the outbuilding.

In these circumstances and despite matters such as the barn hips, gabled dormer addition, rooflights, glazed doors, Juliet balcony and the resulting domestic appearance, the new building would not appear excessive in scale, height or bulk. The Council indicates that the outbuilding would be about 15m from the house. However, this would broadly reflect the separation of the existing garage from the house.

The site is at the end of an unmade road and is enclosed from it by gates and a wall with a significant wooded area to the other side. Even if visible over the boundary treatment, the new building would be seen in the context of the appreciably larger house and wooded backdrop so that it would not be visually intrusive.

In consequence of these factors, there would be no undue spread of development or detrimental impact on the space around the dwelling. Rather than being overly dominant, the structure would be ancillary and subservient to the associated dwelling while also being clearly smaller in scale.

The proposed timber cladding would not match the painted brickwork and hanging slates of the host dwelling. However, as it concerns a separate building and is, in itself, an appropriate material there would be no adverse visual impact from this. I also note that the Council has not objected to this.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the locality. As well as according with the SPD, there would be compliance with Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review 2021-2038 Policies LPRSP15 and LPRHOU2. Among other things and taken together, these intend that development should achieve a high quality of design with its scale, height, form, appearance and siting fitting unobtrusively with the existing building.

In the National Planning Policy Framework it is indicated that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations, which would be complied with in this instance. These include that the proposed development should add to the overall quality of the area, as well as being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.

The angle of view from the glazed doors in the dormer addition would be sufficiently oblique and distant from the neighbouring property at no 32 to avoid any undue overlooking. The space to the boundary would also be sufficient to prevent any adverse effect in relation to matters such as overshadowing and outlook. There is no reason to believe that the ancillary domestic use of the new building would be likely to result in undue noise and disturbance.

There is no technical evidence to justify dismissing the appeal on the basis of highways matters or the effect on wildlife. It is not necessary for the Appellant to demonstrate a need for the building and this would not be a sound reason for rejecting the proposal. Concern over the unauthorised use of the existing garage and the new building are matters that should be raised with the Council. I also note that the Council has raised no objections on arboricultural grounds and see no reason to take a different view.

Taking account of all other matters raised, given the absence of any harm it is determined that the appeal succeeds. In reaching this decision I have carefully considered the representations and photographs submitted by an interested party.

A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. Requiring the facing materials to accord with those specified on the application form is necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance. A condition that biodiversity measures should be implemented is justified to accord with Policy SP15, especially given the nearby woodland.

Permission is being sought for an ancillary domestic outbuilding. A condition restricting its use is not therefore necessary and if it was not used for such a purpose it would be for the Council to consider enforcement action. Given the fairly enclosed nature of the site and particularly verdant surroundings I am not persuaded that a condition requiring new planting should be imposed for visual amenity reasons. Nevertheless, I note that the wildlife condition suggested by the Council includes a requirement for some planting.