Detached garage with studio over

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by Julia Gregory BSc (Hons), BTP, MRTPI, MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th December 2017. Appeal Ref: APP/Z2830/D/17/3183351 Burnham Farmhouse, 5 Bretts Lane, Roade, NN7 2 PA  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 G Nightingale against the decision of South Northants District Council.  The application Ref S/2017/1210/FUL, dated 28 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 June 2017.  The development proposed is a detached garage with studio over. Procedural matter 1. A request was made by the Council to visit No 7 Bretts Lane. Nobody was home at the time of my visit. I am satisfied that there would be no prejudice to any party and that I can reach a decision without visiting as I paid close attention to the relationship of the two properties when at No 5. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, particularly in respect of outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. Burnham Farmhouse is a traditional two-storey stone built dwellinghouse. It is situated on a large plot with its front elevation set back some way from Bretts Lane. Bretts Lane has a mixture of traditional and modern properties, and a spur off it leads to modern properties at the rear of the Farmhouse. 5. The triple garage with studio over would be sited to the rear of the Farmhouse and would be accessed via a gateway at the side of the property. Its front elevation would seek to replicate a traditional farm building. The fenestration would be limited in size with the window in the front projecting gable comprising a window in a hayloft door style and there would be two small roof lights in the front roof slope. The three individual garage doors would be double openers in timber with arched stone courses above. The materials used would match those of the dwelling house. Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/17/3183351 2 6. The access onto Bretts Lane is of limited width and the building would be set back by some way behind frontage buildings. These factors along with the existence of high gates which may be closed from time to time would mean that the building would only be glimpsed from a short section of the frontage. Furthermore, the current view through the access is of the two storey brick gable end of No 15, a modern property to the rear, which closes any distant views. 7. Nonetheless, the building would be of substantial height and massing. It would not appear subservient to the Farmhouse because of this. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance identifies scale as being a consideration in determining planning applications. Furthermore, because of the scale of the building in close proximity to the Farmhouse, facing directly parts of the rear elevation, it would appear cramped viewed with that building. 8. The development would be contrary to the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (LP) saved policy G3 which requires development to be compatible in terms of its scale and siting and LP saved policy H 17 which seeks residential extensions that respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling. It would also be contrary to LP saved policy EV1 which requires attention to be paid to the relationship with adjoining land and buildings and the scale, height and massing in relation to the site and surroundings. Furthermore, it would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that identifies securing high quality design as a core planning principle. Living conditions 9. The building would be a substantial two-storey structure sited close to the common boundary with the short, modest sized rear garden of No 7 to the side. 10. The windows in the building would not create any significant overlooking because of their position in the roof slope and also their distance from the boundary. Nonetheless, because of its scale and massing and the limited size of the garden area to No 7, it would be excessively dominating on outlook from the rear garden of that property, which may not always retain the evergreen boundary planting as currently in place. 11. The building would also have its side elevation close to the common boundary facing the rear of No 11. That property has a larger sized rear garden than No 7 and the views from the garden would be most directly towards the sloping cat slide section of roof. For these reasons, although the common boundary is quite open, especially in winter, the building would not be so dominant and intrusive on outlook from that perspective. 12. The side gable of No 15 lies to the rear of the property. According to the Council there would be some 9 m separation distance between the rear of the garage/studio building and the gable. There is a window in the side elevation of No 15 at ground floor which according to the occupier serves the kitchen. 13. Nonetheless, there are currently bushes on that side boundary over which No 15 has no control as they are in the garden of the Farmhouse and screen that window. Also there would be a cat slide roof at the rear of the building. The first floor window in the gable of No 15 is only a small obscure window. I conclude that the living conditions at No 15 would not be unacceptably Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/17/3183351 3 compromised in relation to sunlight and outlook for these reasons. There would be no rear windows in the building looking towards No 15. 14. In conclusion, it is in respect of the effect on outlook for the occupiers of No 7 from their modest sized rear garden that the development would cause harm. It would be contrary to LP saved policy G3 because it would unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring property. It would also be contrary to LP policy H17 which requires residential extensions to avoid any significant loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers. This would also be contrary to a Framework core principle to seek a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Other matters 15. Whilst I note the planning history and pre-application consultation, I have determined the proposal on its own individual merits. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Julia Gregory Inspector