Detached double garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/D3640/D/17/3184615 11 The Spinney, Camberley, Surrey, GU15 1HH  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 Adam Davison against the decision of Surrey Heath Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/0496, dated 24 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 July 2017.  The development proposed is a detached double garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of its surroundings. Reasons 3. The appeal property, a detached dwelling, is set in an elevated position almost at the end of The Spinney, a verdant spacious cul-de-sac. The street displays what I would describe as an attractive open plan layout in that there is little or no evidence of enclosures at the front of the dwellings. The respective gardens merge visually into one another and there is extensive mature landscaping. 4. The appellant proposes to erect a double garage in his front garden. A similar proposal was refused permission by the Council about a decade ago. I am told that the current proposal differs in that it is slightly lower in height and occupies a revised position. Moreover, in the meantime, the appellant has planted a laurel hedge around most of the front garden, and this has largely matured. 5. The appellant says, correctly, that there is no common building line along this frontage of the cul-de-sac, and I noted that some buildings, including garages protrude forward of the front elevations of some houses. The proposed garage, however, would be sited well apart from and significantly forward of the host property in an exposed and incongruous position, were it not for the screening afforded by trees and hedges, which could theoretically camouflage the proposed structure. 6. I use the term theoretically advisedly since I share the Council’s concerns that insufficient information has been provided to ensure the longevity of the Appeal Decision APP/D3640/D/17/3184615 2 existing trees and planted screen were the proposal built. For example, the amended block plan submitted is drawn to a scale of 1:1250, and does not show the positions of hedges or trees. Notwithstanding the appellant’s description of the proposed construction method and the assertions to the contrary, it is difficult or virtually impossible to properly assess from the drawing, at this scale, how the extant trees and screening could be affected by the proposal. Moreover, no arboricultural report has been submitted, and I share the Council’s view the preparation of such a report would be invaluable in making an appropriate assessment. 7. I do not accept the appellant’s point that these matters could suitably be covered by conditions. In my view more detailed information than provided is vital to an informed decision. Although I could not say with any degree of certainty that this was done as a preparatory act, the evidence of recent tree felling on the appeal site exacerbates my concern on the effect on trees and other screening. 8. I conclude that insufficient information has been provided to convince me that the proposed garage would be effectively screened in the long term. Without such screening the garage would appear as an incongruous structure at odds with the open plan aspect of the cul-de-sac and harmful to its visual amenities. 9. The proposed development would accordingly fail to comply with those provisions of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 relating to Design Principles, in particular that development should be designed so as to protect trees and other vegetation worthy of retention and provide high quality hard and soft landscaping where appropriate. 10. All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into account and considered including the references to other forms of local development considered similar by the appellant and the Western Urban Area Character Supplementary Planning Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. No other matter raised outweighs the considerations that led me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR