Appeal 6008424

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for “Alterations to the fenestration replacing the garage doors with windows and a door”, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 26/0080/FUL). No conditions are necessary in this case.

Since the development which is the subject of this appeal has already been carried out, the application is to be treated as one made under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

The appeal site is located in a suburban setting, in a predominantly residential area of [site address] . [address] is a side road, off [address], and this part of the road serves a number of dwellings, of different types and styles. Number 15 is a substantial detached house, of brickwork and timbering under pitched, tiled roofs, in a mock-Tudor style. The submitted floor plans show that it is a large house, with additions at the rear and an unusual internal layout. In consequence, it appears that the back garden is now rather small, while the front garden is partly paved, to provide a car parking area.

Permission had been granted for the conversion of the original garage to form living accommodation, in the form of a “laundry”, “cloak room” and “toilet” (under reference 24/0544/FUL). That planning permission was subject a condition that required the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved Appeal Decision: 6008424 drawings. In the event, however, a different internal layout has been constructed (according to the “proposed (as existing)” ground floor plan), creating a large “reception room” with a lobby and “bathroom”. The previously approved drawings showed two large windows on the front elevation, in place of the original garage doors, whereas this part of the front elevation now incorporates smaller windows and an external door.

This appeal seeks planning permission for the alterations to the front elevation, retrospectively.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. In particular, “Policy EC2 – Design” of the Local Plan (which was adopted in 1998) has the aim of achieving high standards of design.

The Council’s ‘Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document’ (effective from 1 January 2013) is also relevant but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan. Section 5.10 of the guidance (including guidance note RDG8) draws attention to the importance of careful architectural detailing.

The alteration to the front elevation, replacing original garage doors, has been carried out with good quality brickwork in harmony with the remainder of the building, incorporating decorative brickwork detailing that makes use of contrasting brick courses to maintain the “Tudor” imagery. The new windows and external door are asymmetrical in the elevation but are not unsightly. The new external door appears subservient to the main door of the house, which is within an architectural framing element as well as incorporating a letterbox and other features that indicate that it is the principal entrance to the house.

I am aware that reference has also been made to alleged unauthorised uses or other development at the site but those matters do not form part of this appeal.

I am also conscious that the appellant has argued that the alterations for which planning permission is now sought “could now be carried out under the General Permitted Development Order”, although the local planning authority take a different view. In the light of my conclusions on the design issue in this appeal, however, it is unnecessary for me to form an opinion on the “fallback” argument.

In short, the deficiencies in architectural composition that the Council has identified are not so unsatisfactory in design terms as to justify a refusal of permission on the grounds of design. I have concluded that the proposed development does not affect the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings to an extent that is unacceptable in planning terms.

Hence, the alterations for which planning permission is sought in this appeal are not in conflict with the national policies or with the Development Plan as a whole and I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be granted planning Appeal Decision: 6008424 permission. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.

I have also considered the need for conditions but, since the work has already been completed and no further modifications to this part of the elevation are required, I consider that no conditions are necessary in this case.