Garage conversion and extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2017 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/D/17/3188194 Cherry Trees, Cambridge Road, Oakington, Cambridge CB24 3BG  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 Ravinder Virdee against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council.  The application Ref: S/1553/17/FL, dated 27 April 2017, was refused by notice dated  14 August 2017.  The development proposed is a garage conversion and extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider streetscene. Reasons 3. The dwelling on the appeal site is a large detached modern dwelling set back from the road frontage with a detached, pitched roof, double garage set forward of it within the front garden. The appeal site lies along a main road which runs through the village of Oakington. The wider village contains a mixture of modern and traditional buildings. The properties within the immediate context of the appeal site are modern and are also set back from the road frontage, with generally open front gardens, some marked by hedges or low fences to the front. The existing garage on the appeal site is somewhat incongruous in this context though not overly intrusive due to its current siting set back from the road frontage. 4. The proposed alterations to the garage would involve extending it towards the road frontage to almost double the size of the existing. The extended part of the garage roof would have half hips to each side with central flat ‘crown’ roof section. Dormers would be inserted to the front elevation and side (south east) with new windows inserted in the existing garage to provide ancillary residential accommodation at both ground and first floor levels. A single garage would be provided within the extended part of the building. 5. The altered and extended garage building would be a large and bulky building. Although it would be no higher than the existing ridge height of the garage, it would, appear as an unduly prominent and substantial building within plot and Appeal Decision APP/W0530/D/17/3188194 2 the wider streetscene. This would be exacerbated by the siting of the extended building right up to the pavement edge. Whilst part of the front garden would be retained as open parking and garden areas, the proposed building would nevertheless, appear overly dominant. 6. The appellant suggests that this would not be out of keeping with the pattern of built form within the wider area and I saw on my site visit that there are buildings sited on the road frontage to the north west of the site, at the nearby crossroads junction. However, those buildings are clearly part of the older, more traditional part of the village and are single storey buildings which appeared to be associated with an adjoining commercial garage premises. 7. I do not consider that the proposed extended garage building at the appeal site would be a true reflection of this traditional built layout given that it would be sited in the front garden of a residential property to which it would relate and in respect of which it would, in my opinion, appear overly dominating. Furthermore, the proposed building with a number of roof dormers set within a bulky crown roof would not reflect the simple pitched roof forms of the nearby traditional buildings. 8. Overall therefore, I consider that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. It would thus conflict with Policies DP/2 and DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Development Framework Development Control Policies 2007 which seek development that is compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, mass, form, siting, design and proportions in relation to the surrounding area. 9. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. P Jarvis INSPECTOR