Appeal 6008011

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for garage to front at [site address] , Eydon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: 2025/4225/FULL and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing no. M135-1001 (location and block plans) and drawing no. M135-1000B (plans and elevations as proposed).

The materials to be used in the external construction of the garage hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing dwelling.

The above address is that used in the original application form and on the appeal form. The Council describe the site as ‘land north of [address]’ on the decision notice and it appears that the new plot comprising the appeal site is number [address].

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene.

The appeal site lies on the north-eastern edge of the village on the northern side of [address]. A large detached dwelling, currently under construction though nearing completion, is sited towards the centre of the site. It is set back from the road frontage behind an established hedge with some trees with a gap towards the eastern boundary providing vehicular access. The land adjoining to the east comprises open paddock with farm and other buildings beyond. Adjoining to the west is a newly constructed large detached dwelling (No. [address]) with further dwellings beyond to the west on both sides of the road.

The Council’s Officer Report describes the appeal site as occupying a prominent corner position at the junction of [address] and [address]. It also implies that the site is located in the Eydon Conservation Area (CA). However, [address] is some distance to the west of the site within the main part of the village and the nearest part of the conservation area boundary is along the southern boundary of No. [address], slightly closer but still some distance away. The appeal site is not readily visible from this eastern edge of the CA nor does the Council suggest that its character or appearance would be harmed. I concur with this.

The site is visible as the first property in approaches from the east along [address] being at the end of a line of dwellings along the northern side. As such it does appear as a ‘gateway’ to the village in this location.

The siting of the proposed garage within the plot frontage forward of the main building line would introduce a pattern of built form that is not characteristic of the immediate street scene of [address]. However, the land on the northern side of the road slopes gently downhill from west to east and the dwelling on the appeal site is also set at a lower level than the road. The proposed garage would be sited at a similar lower level around one and a half a metres below the finished floor level of the adjoining dwelling at No. 7, close to the boundary between the two, which comprises a retaining wall of railway sleepers with post and rail fence above.

As a result of these level differences, in views approaching the village from the east, notwithstanding its forward siting within the plot, the garage would be seen against the backdrop of the adjoining house. The ridge height of the garage would be only just above the eaves level of the nearest element of that dwelling which sits slightly forward of the dwelling on the appeal site. In addition, the roadside hedge with trees, which also marks the roadside boundary of the adjoining paddock to the east of the appeal site, would provide further screening.

Given the above, the proposed garage would not appear unduly prominent nor dominant within the street scene. Nor would it detract from the relatively open character of the site and its surroundings as a generous amount of front garden would be retained. Its siting at a low level compared to the road and the adjoining dwelling, set close to the side boundary and to the side of the main elevation of the dwelling, would also ensure that it would appear subservient and ancillary in scale and nature to the host dwelling.

The garage would be sited to the front of the lower one and a half storey element to the side of the main dwelling and would obscure it to an extent. However, the well designed, pleasant two storey front façade of the host dwelling would remain visible as the main element within the street scene. In views from the west more of the dwelling would be obscured but it would also be screened by the roadside hedge, with the upper level visible above it.

The Parish Council suggests that garages sited forward of the host dwelling is not a characteristic of the wider village. Whilst this would appear to be the case, there are nevertheless dwellings sited forward within their plots close to the road frontage such that this pattern of built form is not entirely incongruous. In any event, for the reasons given above, I have found that the proposal would not result in any harmful impact in this case having regard to the particular site characteristics.

Overall, whilst sited forward of host dwelling, the proposed garage would not unacceptably harm the established pattern of built development and open qualities of the street scene. It would thus comply with Policy SA of the [site address] Joint Core Strategy Local Plan Part 1 (2014) and Policy SS2 and SDP1 of the adopted [name] 2 Local Plan (2020) which expect development to be of good quality design that maintains or enhances the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene and surroundings and is compatible and integrates with its surroundings and the distinctive local character of the area.

It would also comply with the [name] (2017) which seeks to ensure that the architectural detailing of residential extensions complement the characteristics of the host dwelling and wider area, remain subservient and not impact upon the primary elevation. It would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seeks good design that is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment.

In addition to the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and proper planning. In addition, a condition to require materials to match the host dwelling is necessary in the interests of the visual amenity and character of the street scene.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.