Appeal 6009349

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for the erection of a 1.5 storey building for a garage with home office with roof lights and external staircase at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, CB/26/00114/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: Site Location and Proposed Block Plan Drawing No 2601071- PL01A, [name] and [name] 2601071-PL04B, and Proposed Site Plan Drawing No 2601071-PL05.

No development shall commence until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples.

No development shall take place until an archaeological [name] of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The WSI shall contain the following components: (i) A method statement for the investigation of any archaeological remains that will be affected by the development (ii) An outline strategy for post excavation assessment, analysis, archive preparation and publication including details of the timetable for each stage of the post-excavation works The development should be carried out in full accordance with the approved details within the WSI.

The Council changed the description of the development, and I have used this description as it more accurately describes the proposal.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

[site address] , the appeal property, is a detached dwelling, currently in the course of renovation, set well back from the highway in a rural village. The appeal site is a L shaped substantial plot with a rear garden area sited partly behind the garden of the neighbouring property, No 26 Moor End. Beyond the immediate application site area lies a large open grassed area which is in the control of the appellant. The proposed 1.5 storey garage would be sited to the rear of the garden of the neighbouring property and due to its set back behind that and the host dwelling would not be visible from the streetscene.

The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (CBDG) provides amongst other things that garages should be of a size where they do not dominate the house, be subservient and in proportion to the main house. The host dwelling itself is a substantial modern detached dwelling. Notwithstanding that the garage would be relatively large for a domestic outbuilding, its ridge height would be lower than that of the host dwelling extending to approximately the same height as the eaves of the dwelling. Whilst not constructed in matching materials to the host dwelling, they would be reflective of other outbuildings found within the area. In the context of the scale of the main dwelling, and the size of the garden area, the garage would not appear to be disproportionate or unduly intrusive in the space.

The immediate area is one of detached dwellings in large plots and outbuildings/garages of differing sizes are evident in neighbouring gardens. The garage would only be visible from the private views of neighbouring properties. Considering similar buildings in neighbouring gardens, the proposed garage would be unlikely to be viewed as a discordant or incongruous feature. I am not persuaded that in this context the proposed garage would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site or the wider area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, which requires development proposals, amongst other matters, to relate well to the existing local surroundings in terms of size, scale and massing and appearance. Nor would it be in conflict with the CBDG, details of which are given above or the National Planning Policy Framework which provides for development to be sympathetic to local character.

Conditions in respect of timescales and specifying the approved plans are necessary as these provide certainty. A condition regarding the materials to be used is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory. A condition for a WSI is also required in the interests of ensuring that recording of any potential heritage assets is made.

For the reasons given above having considered the development plan and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in the formal decision notice above.