Erection of a detached double garage forward of the front elevation of the property, driveway hardstanding extended across the front of the property, and the conversion of the existing integral double garage into additional living accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2017 by P G Horridge BSc(Hons) DipTP FRICS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 01 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/D1835/D/17/3184122 Dace House, 2 Perch Road, Broomhall, Worcester WR5 3AD  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 Michael Holloway against the decision of Worcester City Council.  The application Ref P17L0174 was refused by notice dated 28 June 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a detached double garage forward of the front elevation of the property, driveway hardstanding extended across the front of the property, and the conversion of the existing integral double garage into additional living accommodation. Preliminary Matters 1. The description of development is taken from the application form. The works also include the construction of an iron railing fence around part of the front boundary. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached double garage forward of the front elevation of the property, the extension of the driveway hardstanding across the front of the property, the conversion of the existing integral double garage into additional living accommodation and the construction of an iron railing boundary fence at Dace House, 2 Perch Road, Broomhall, Worcester WR5 3AD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P17L0174, dated 29 March 2017, and the plans submitted with it, 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 plans: Current Layout (28th March 2017), Proposed Layout (28th March 2017) and Proposed Detached Garage Detail (28th March 2017). 3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the garage hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main issue 3. At issue is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the streetscene. Appeal Decision APP/D1835/D/17/3184122 2 Reasons 4. Relevant planning policy is contained in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP). Policy SWDP21 seeks a high standard of design, with new development integrating effectively with its surroundings and reinforcing local distinctiveness, among other matters. This reflects guidance in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 5. The appeal property occupies a relatively prominent position close to the entrance to this housing development from Bath Road and at the crossroads junction between Perch Road/Grayling Close and Dace Road. Properties in the area generally have reasonably open front garden areas, with some trees, shrubs and hedging. There are nevertheless examples elsewhere within the development of detached garages in front garden areas, including one close to the appeal site at 9 Dace Road, albeit this is partly concealed from view by a hedge along the front boundary. Given the variety in the front garden treatments in the area and the presence of other detached garages in front of houses, the proposed garage would not appear out of place, notwithstanding its more prominent location close to the crossroads junction. 6. The proposed fence is intended to provide some demarcation of the front boundary of the property, particularly to prevent dogs straying onto the front garden. It would mirror similar fences to the fronts of properties in the locality, particularly along Dace Road. It too would not appear as an incongruous feature. 7. In these respects the proposed development would not be detrimental to the appearance of the streetscene. As such it would not be contrary to the provisions of DP Policy SWDP21. The appeal is allowed, subject to conditions specifying the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and to simplify the procedures should it be necessary to make any changes to the scheme, and requiring the use of matching materials, in the interests of visual amenity. Peter Horridge INSPECTOR