Erection of a detached garage to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 June 2017 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19th June 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/D/17/3170435 393 London Road, Clanfield, Waterlooville, Hampshire PO8 0PJ  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 Turrell against the decision of East Hampshire District Council.  The application Ref 50633/001, dated 14 October 2016, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2016.  The development proposed is the erection of a detached garage to front. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached garage to front at 393 London Road, Clanfield, Waterlooville, Hampshire PO8 0PJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 50633/001, dated 14 October 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Drg No 16/31. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling at 393 London Road. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 393 London Road and the wider area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow that, in common with all other properties along this side of London Road, is set well back from the plot’s frontage and at a significantly lower level than the carriageway. The proposal is to erect a detached garage to the front of the dwelling and positioned close to the plot’s front boundary, with a pitched roof over and ridge line running parallel to London Road. Appeal Decision APP/M1710/D/17/3170435 2 4. London Road has dwellings to just one side only, with a dense tree belt opposite. I saw during my visit several properties with fairly substantial garage buildings to their frontages, some built close to the back edge of the pavement. Due to the topography of the land, these all appear as reasonably prominent structures within the street scene, with each also having a fairly dominant presence in relation to the host dwelling. Although not necessarily a relationship that is typical for most residential locations, the presence of forward set and prominent ancillary outbuildings forms part of the established character and pattern of development within this particular area. In most cases, despite their forward positions, the garages are built in materials to match the main dwelling such that overall I found them to be reasonably well integrated and comfortable within their surroundings. 5. In this case the garage would be set close to the front boundary but sufficiently recessed from it to allow some planting between it and the edge of the pavement. The proposal shows that the land levels within the site would be excavated to a degree such that the finished floor level of the garage would be set below the level of the footway along London Road. This would reduce the perceived scale and bulk of the building when seen within the street scene. My overall impression is that the visual presence of the garage would be merely reflective of many others nearby. Although it would be seen as a fairly prominent building along London Road, it would be of a form and scale that would be in-keeping with the local context. Whilst it would be reasonably dominant in relation to the existing dwelling, this would also simply reflect the relationships that have been forged between many other dwellings and their associated garage outbuildings elsewhere along this part of London Road. The use of finishing materials that would match those used on No 393 would further ensure that the building would be comfortable in its setting. 6. Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would respect the character, identity and context of its surroundings. It would therefore accord with the aims and objectives of Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy, which was adopted in 2014. 7. A condition specifying the relevant drawing is necessary as this provides certainty. A condition requiring the materials to be used should match those at No 393 is reasonable and necessary in the interests of maintaining harmony within the street scene. The Council has suggested a condition that would restrict the use of the building for purposes incidental and ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. However, use of the building for anything other than ancillary purposes would constitute a material change of use and would require planning permission in any case. Such a condition is therefore unnecessary. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of either No 393 or the wider area. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR