Erection of first floor extension to rear garden garage (Revised)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 August 2017 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Y1110/D/17/3175328 2 Lymeborne Avenue, Exeter EX1 3AU  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 and Mrs Cole against the decision of Exeter City Council.  The application Ref 16/1390/03, dated 4 November 2016, was refused by notice dated 22 February 2017.  The development proposed is erection of first floor extension to rear garden garage (Revised). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A first floor extension to the garage building has been completed and I was able to view it in place during my site visit. 3. I am aware that planning permission Ref.15/0976/03 for ‘Erection of first floor extension to rear garden garage’ was granted at the appeal site on the 12 November 2015, subject to conditions. The appellants have provided me with copies of the decision notice and approved drawings pertaining to this permission. The Council has confirmed that the documents I have received are correct. 4. The Council’s report to its Planning Committee confirms that the planning application, which this appeal relates to was submitted to regularise amendments ‘as built’ to the extension approved under planning permission 15/0976/03. These amendments included an increase in the overall size of the garage building and the installation of a set of glazed French doors at first floor level along the front elevation of the garage building. 5. The planning application to which this appeal relates to was refused on the basis of the following drawings: PL/SLP/01, PL/PRO. FLOOR & ROOF PLANS/01 and PL/PRO.ELEVATIONS/01. However, at my site visit I noted that these drawings do not reflect the development ‘as built’. The main differences are that ‘as built’ the garage building includes a further door along the side elevation and an additional first floor window to the rear elevation. In addition, the plans show a ground floor window on the rear elevation, which is not included on the building. I have determined this appeal on the basis of the submitted drawings. Appeal Decision APP/Y1110/D/17/3175328 2 Main Issues 6. The main issues are:  the effect of the proposed first floor extension over the garage on the character and appearance of the surrounding area in respect of its height, scale, materials and elevational treatments; and,  the effect of the proposed first floor glazed French doors along the front elevation of the garage on the living conditions of neighbours in respect of overlooking and privacy. Reasons 7. As stated above, the appeal site benefits from planning permission (15/0976/03) which the appellants are relying upon as their ‘fall-back’ position, as per their ‘Written Statement’. This ‘fall-back’ planning permission has not time expired and therefore is still capable of being implemented. Therefore, I attach considerable weight to it in determining this appeal. Character and appearance 8. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling along Lymeborne Avenue a short cul-de-sac of five pairs of similar dwellings, which are on slightly elevated ground relative to the road. On the opposite side of the cul-de-sac is the Heavitree Pleasure Ground, a municipal park. Dwellings along Lymeborne Avenue and their associated garages are visible from a path, which runs along the boundary of the park. 9. A common feature of this well-defined and prominent streetscene is the shared driveways between sets of dwellings, which lead to pairs of subordinate single storey garages, set behind the dwellings, but still visible through gaps between the dwellings. With the exception of the appeal site and the neighbouring dwelling 3 Lymeborne Avenue, these garages are of a similar scale and design. Along with the dwellings these give the streetscene a distinctive character and appearance. 10. The proposed garage building would be noticeably larger than other nearby garages. However, in this particular case there is no discernible difference between the scale and height of the proposed garage extension and that which has already been approved under planning permission (15/0976/03). 11. Under Section 11 of the planning application form the materials proposed for the extension would be roof tiles, UPVC windows and ‘block render’ for the walls, this would suggest a blockwork skin with a rendered finish. Given the wide palette of materials used in the vicinity of the appeal site, the proposed materials would be acceptable, subject to an appropriate condition allowing the Council to agree final details, if the appeal were to succeed. 12. The proposed fenestration to the side and rear of the garage building is not visible from the road and in any case is of a scale and appearance commensurate with a domestic outbuilding. The proposed garage door is typical of the type associated with a domestic garage. 13. However, the proposal includes the installation of a pair of glazed French doors at first floor level on the garage building facing the highway. Appeal Decision APP/Y1110/D/17/3175328 3 14. Whilst I am aware that paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) suggests that decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and not stifle innovation, originality or initiative, it also states that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. 15. Irrespective that the appeal site is not in a Conservation Area or the subject of any Article 4 Directive, Lymeborne Avenue presents an established and distinctive streetscene with a coherent, traditional character. Outbuildings such as garages are, by and large, not prominent and appear subservient to the dwellings. Nor are French doors such as these a prominent feature, at least to the front of properties. Consequently, the inclusion of the French doors would result in a building out of keeping with the wider area, detracting from its established character. Moreover, it would also give undue prominence to what is essentially a subordinate building. Overall, I conclude that the proposed glazed French doors would appear incongruous within the established streetscene, which is prominent and visible from the adjacent park. My findings on this matter are reinforced having observed the doors which have already been installed to the front of the existing garage building ‘as built’ at the appeal site, which also have the visual effect I have outlined above. 16. For the reasons set out above, the proposed extension to the garage by virtue of its glazed French doors would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, which would conflict with policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review (LP) which, consistent with the aims of the Framework requires new development to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area in order to reinforce local distinctiveness. Living conditions 17. Notwithstanding my conclusion that the proposed glazed French doors would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, I note that these doors are proposed to be fixed shut and obscure glazed, which the main parties agree could be secured by way of a planning condition. This would ameliorate any potential overlooking or loss of privacy. Therefore, the first floor extension of the garage would not harm the living conditions of neighbours by way of overlooking or loss of privacy. As such, I find no conflict with policy DG4 of the Council’s LP. This amongst other matters seeks to ensure a quality of amenity, which allows residents to feel at ease in their gardens. Other Matters 18. I have noted third party concerns in respect of the Council’s determination of planning applications relating to the appeal site, discrepancies between the ‘as built’ garage building and previously approved plans, the alleged use of the building, its effect on the living conditions of neighbours and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, as set out in the ‘Preliminary Matters’ my Decision relates to the proposed development. Therefore, the above matters are not for me in dealing with this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/Y1110/D/17/3175328 4 Conclusion 19. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellants on the second main issue this does not outweigh the harm arising from the proposal as set out above and conflict with the development plan as a whole. 20. For the reasons set out above, I dismiss this appeal. M Aqbal INSPECTOR