Appeal 6008216

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The original planning application was revised through the submission of amended plans. These changed the external materials for the garage from the originally proposed anthracite-finished galvanised metal walls and roof to vertical boarded timber walling paired with anthracite-finished metal roof sheeting. I have considered the appeal based upon the revised drawings; those being the plans ultimately considered by the Council.

The appeal relates to a large, detached property on the south side of [site address] set behind a managed lawn and mature landscaping adjacent to a close-boarded fence to the road’s edge. It sits within a countryside, rural setting with an extensive range of lakes to the south side of the appeal site forming part of the Cotswold Water Park with associated buildings, along with sporadic dwellings and utilitarian agricultural buildings more widely in the locality, including those immediately adjacent to the side of the site’s eastern boundary.

The appeal follows the refusal of planning permission after the submission of a householder application for the erection of a building described as a single-storey garage intended to provide covered and secure car-parking for vehicles used by the applicant, visitors and guests of [site address] . The building would be approximately 10.5m wide, 12m deep and with a shallow dual pitched roof with a ridge height of just over 5m and eaves height of 4m. It would be positioned between the dwelling and [site address] , to the eastern side of the lawn with two roller shutter doors facing south towards an existing gravel drive.

The Cotswold Design Code (CDC) at [name] of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 (CDLP), adopted in 2018, covers all aspects of design, with its aim to ensure the highest standards of new development that respects the distinctive qualities of the District. CDLP Policy EN2 proactively supports development in accordance with the CDC and requires proposals to be of a design quality that respects the character and distinctive appearance of the locality. Section D.67 part 2 of the CDC deals specifically with residential garages and outbuildings. Amongst other things, the CDC advises that new outbuildings should relate well to the scale and character of the main building and the plot in which it sits, that they should generally not be positioned forward of the street facing or principal elevation of the building, and that local stone is often the most appropriate and traditional material for construction with large new timber buildings not so characteristic of the Cotswolds.

Regardless of what may be considered to be the dwelling’s principal elevation owing to the position of the front door, the proposed garage would sit directly forward of its street facing elevation, which in my judgement is by no means subordinate in either scale or form. At the time of my visit the farmhouse was screened from sight along [site address] by virtue of the dense foliage which was in leaf. At other times of the year, I am not persuaded that the dwelling, or its plot, would be entirely out of view. Moreover, the proposed building would occupy a significant portion of the space between the driveway, which runs parallel with the main road and the front boundary, with a number of trees to be removed. Any new proposed planting would take time to establish and would, in any event, be unlikely to entirely screen the building, which would not be wholly out of sight and would be viewed very much in context with the dwelling and its forward-facing garden.

With this in mind, I find the siting, scale, and form of the proposed garage to be entirely out of keeping with the traditional appearance and setting of the dwelling. Notwithstanding the size and scale of the farmhouse, as a single-storey ancillary domestic outbuilding, the proposed garage would be unquestionably large. I accept that there may be a need to accommodate secure storage and parking for a number of vehicles and that there is no requirement for the appellant to justify their requirements. However, due to the footprint proposed and its tall eaves, the building’s elevations would be vast and largely featureless. Due to its overall size and uncharacteristic choice of materials, the building would be a prominent rather than incidental feature that would appear utilitarian in both form and function. Rather than harmonious with and complementary to the house and its garden surrounds I find overall the proposal would be out-of-keeping and incongruous within its residential setting and as a consequence harmful to the character and appearance of the area. For this reason, there would be conflict with the aims and objectives of the CDC and requirements of CDLP Policy EN2. For the same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy requirements for achieving well-designed places.

I am mindful of buildings immediately to the east of the appeal site. These include a range of utilitarian agricultural buildings of comparable or larger size to the proposed garage. However, these sit beyond a clearly demarcated boundary which encloses the residential curtilage of the farmhouse and are obviously distinct from the garden setting of the proposed garage. Whilst they form part of the existing mixed pattern of local sporadic development, the context of these in both position and function draws no comparison with a householder proposal for a single-storey domestic garage on a residential plot.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a fallback position. There is an extant planning permission for development described as ‘Erection of two single storey garages ancillary to [address]’ (Ref 24/01247/FUL). I have been provided with copies of the approved plans which show two separate parallel garage blocks either side of a central gravel courtyard set between the dwelling and [site address] . I accept that these may have a combined footprint equivalent in size to the current appeal proposal. Nevertheless, they were proposed to be constructed with Cotswold stone, hipped slate roofs, and with eaves heights of 2.39m and ridge heights of 3.95m. These were found by the Council to be subservient additions that would respect the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. Those findings do not reflect my own in relation to the appeal proposal, which is materially different in scale and form to that which has previously been approved.

For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.