New garage. Extended Hard Standing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 December 2017 by N A Holdsworth MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 3rd January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A2280/D/17/3183956 20, Horsted Way, Rochester, Kent, ME1 2XY.  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 Leonard Horn against the decision of The Medway Council.  The application Ref MC/17/1718, dated 26 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 July 2017.  The development proposed is “New garage. Extended Hard Standing”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposed double garage on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property forms part of a line of detached residential buildings facing the north side of Horsted Way. Whilst they differ in terms of their appearance, these dwellings follow a common building line set back away from the main road, with the areas to their front comprising open spaces used as gardens and vehicular driveways. This uniform pattern of development is clearly apparent in views along Horsted Way. 4. The proposed garage would extend across a large proportion of the total width of the existing front garden area of the host property. Whilst a gap would be retained between the proposed building and the front boundary wall, the garage with its pitched roof would nonetheless appear as a building of substantial scale in the area to the front of No.20, obscuring views from the street towards the host property and those that surround it. Consequently, it would depart from the existing pattern of development found along this part of Horsted Way, to the detriment of its character and appearance. 5. In coming to this view I accept that the topography of the site means that the eaves of the building would be broadly level with the top of the front garden wall. However, the pitched roof of the garage would be clearly visible above this wall, which means that the building would still be clearly apparent in views from the surrounding area. The harm that I have identified relates to the bulk, height and location of the proposed building, and could not be addressed through the use of sympathetic materials. Appeal Decision APP/A2280/D/17/3183956 2 6. The appellant draws attention to another garage that has been built to the front of number 8 Horsted Way. I observed that this garage is clearly visible from the road and has been constructed in very close proximity to the front boundary wall. On the evidence before me, this building appears to have been granted planning permission by the Council in 20121, following the previous approval of a dwelling with a detached garage in a different location in the area to the front of that building. Whilst I am not aware of the full background to those decisions, the garage in front of No.8 currently appears as a one off in wider streetscene, and has not changed the prevailing pattern of development along this part of Horsted Way. Consequently, it does not provide an example that should inevitably be followed, given the harm that would arise as a consequence of the proposed development. 7. I therefore conclude that the proposed detached double garage would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan (adopted May 2003) which, amongst other things, requires the design of new development to be appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the built environment. Other Matters 8. The Council also express concern in the officer report about the loss of soft landscaping in the front garden area. However, its reason for refusal relates principally to the scale, height and bulk of the proposed double garage. The plans indicate that the new vehicular hardstanding would be constructed with permeable paving. Given that many of the front garden areas of surrounding buildings are used for vehicular parking, I consider that on this occasion the loss of soft landscaping would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area. 9. The development would provide for the appellants needs in relation to vehicular parking. It would also provide for additional vehicular turning space avoiding the need to reverse on to the main road, leading to a potential improvement in highway safety. This would be achieved without having any adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of surrounding residential buildings. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that would arise to the character and appearance of the area due to the bulk, height and location of the proposed building. The lack of objections to the development does not comprise a benefit in its favour. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Neil Holdsworth INSPECTOR 1 Planning permission MC/12/0729 “Retrospective application for construction of double garage to front”, Approved 18 May 2012.