Remote from house double garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 November 2016 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 09 November 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/L2820/D/16/3158127 4 Reynolds Close, Kettering, NN15 5JT  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr C Rogers against the decision of Kettering Borough Council.  The application Ref KET/2016/0470, dated 29 June 2016, was refused by notice dated 1 September 2016.  The development proposed is described as a ‘remote from house double garage’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The dwellings in this part of the housing estate, including Reynolds Close, are generally on fairly large plots. The buildings are typically set well back from the highway behind landscaped front gardens or parking forecourts. That includes the garages many of which are integral or attached to the dwellings. Many of the frontages are open, or where there are borders these are often delineated by hedgerows, or occasional walls of limited height. Those characteristics combine to give the area a spacious, open and landscaped ambiance. 4. The proposed double garage would be off-set to one side, but sited well forward of the host property’s front elevation. It would be finished in materials to match the house. Although an approximately 1m gap between it and the pavement would remain, in that location it would jar with the locally distinctive character of buildings set back a significant distance from the highway. The impact that that would have on the streetscene would be very apparent when approaching along Reynolds Close from the east. Notwithstanding the scope for some planting in the narrow north-facing strip of land between the proposed garage and the highway, the garage’s flank wall would also be dominant viewed from the pavements to the front of the site. 5. For those reasons the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently it would conflict with the general approach set out in those parts of policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/16/3158127 2 (2016) which require that development respond to the site’s immediate context and local character. It would also fail to satisfy the broadly similar requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly at paragraphs 58 and 64. 6. I note that permission has been granted for the conversion of the host property’s existing garage, and for the erection of a detached garage which I understand would be sited further back in the plot (Ref: KET/2016/0105). The appellant states that the position of the proposed garage would provide a more direct parking ability from the road. However, from the evidence before me I am not persuaded that the proposed garage would provide a significantly improved parking arrangement, and any such benefit to the appellant does not outweigh the harm that I have found the scheme would cause to the character and appearance of the area. 7. In reaching my decision I have had regard to a representation from a local resident. However the additional matters raised have not been determinative in this appeal. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR