Appeal 6007957

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene and the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property is one dwelling in a row of detached houses set well back from [address]. There is no consistency of design between the dwellings, but a shared characteristic is a well-defined building line and an absence of any significant built form between the front elevation of each property and the boundary with the pavement on this side of the road. Neighbouring dwellings have mature vegetation, but the appeal site has been cleared as part of ongoing building works to the property.

The Officer’s Report states that the appeal scheme is a smaller proposal than a proposed double garage with a dormer, refused permission in January 2026. The proposed garage in this appeal would have a double pitch roof to a ridge height of 4.4m; would be set back 3.9m from the front boundary, and 1.8m from the northwest side boundary.

The roof of a smaller building in the adjoining corner of No. [address] to the proposed garage is visible form the pavement, but the Report states that there is no planning history for this structure. There is similarly no planning history for other structures in front gardens in this part of the road, but these are significantly smaller and well screened by the landscaping.

I consider that a building within the front garden of No. 186 would be an incongruous and harmful development in the street scene. To the extent that there is reference to other existing structures to the front of their host dwellings in this part of [address], as stated above they are less prominent than would be the case with this proposal and according to the Council are not authorised. Appeal Decision Ref. 6007957

The partly constructed front wall when finished would offer a degree of screening, but the presence of the proposed building would be readily apparent, especially as the area between it and the vehicular entrance would need to be kept open to allow access. In my view a garage in front of the dwelling, and particularly one so close to the front boundary would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the [address] street scene and the conservation area. Furthermore, a permission in this case would make it difficult for the Council to refuse permission for similar proposals in this part of [address], thereby adding further to the adverse effect.

As such, the development would conflict with Policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 adopted July 2018 and with Government policy in Section 16: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the [name] of the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024. The harm caused to the conservation area would be ‘less than substantial’ as referred to in paragraph 215 of the Framework, but nonetheless still warrant a refusal of permission. Nor are there any public benefits of the proposal to weigh against the harm caused.

I have noted the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the way in which the Council processed the application. However, my remit in this appeal is to decide on the application’s planning merits as submitted.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal fails.