Alteration and extension to existing detached double garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 January 2018 by Roy Merrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/17/3189039 19 Rutland Avenue, Walton, Warrington WA4 6PB  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 & Mrs Brown against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/30927, dated 31 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 September 2017.  The development proposed is alteration and extension to existing detached double garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alteration and extension to existing detached double garage at 19 Rutland Avenue, Walton, Warrington WA4 6PB, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2017/30927, dated 31 July 2017, and 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: A01 Rev A; A02. 3) No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the development on i) the living conditions of nearby residents at Nos 13 and 15 Hill Cliffe Road with particular regard to outlook and ii) the character and appearance of the area including impact on trees. Reasons Living Conditions 3. Whilst the development would significantly increase the height of the detached garage to the side of the main dwelling, it is common ground between the parties that the extension would accord with the minimum separation distance Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/17/3189039 2 between the rear elevation of dwellings containing habitable room windows and blank side elevations, as proposed in this case, as set out in the Council’s house extension guidelines. The Council however takes the view that the circumstances of the site mean that the development would appear overbearing in relation to adjacent dwellings. 4. Although the garage would be extended to the rear, it would remain significantly offset from much of the rear elevation of No 15 Hill Cliffe Road. This property would continue to benefit from an open aspect over the rear of the appeal property. 5. The increase in height of the building and alteration of the roof from a hip to gable design would be most directly visible from the rear of No 13 Hill Cliffe Road. However, despite a modest drop in ground levels between the appeal site and No 13, the proposed garage gable would be markedly lower than the height of a typical two storey dwelling. Furthermore, a significant open aspect would remain from the rear of No 13 forward of the front elevation of the appeal property along Rutland Avenue. 6. Taking these factors into consideration, I am not persuaded that a compelling case has been made that there is insufficient separation between buildings and that the development would result in an overbearing impact and oppressive living conditions for residents of the two properties. I conclude the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of nearby residents at 13 and 15 Hill Cliffe Road with particular regard to outlook. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy QE6 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy 2014 insofar as it seeks to safeguard the living conditions of residents in terms of outlook from properties. Character and Appearance 7. The predominant roof form within the immediate area is a hipped style. However there are outbuildings present designed with a conventional pitched style roof with side gables. Peaked dormer windows within the roof space are also evident elsewhere along Rutland Avenue. The garage subject to the appeal is set back from the highway in line with the front elevation of the main dwelling. Therefore whilst the proposal would result in an increase to its height and mass, the size of the dormer would be relatively small and the overall structure would continue to appear subordinate to the main dwelling and not as an incongruous or dominant feature in relation to the host property or within the wider street scene. 8. The Council expressed concern that the extension would result in harm to the roots of a nearby tree, situated on the appeal property, which it regarded as an important landscape feature. However from my visit, no such tree was evident. It would appear, from the information before me, that the tree in question has since been removed from the site. However there is no suggestion that the tree benefitted from any statutory protection, including by way of a formal tree preservation order. This would, presumably, have been within the Council’s powers to pursue had it considered such action to be warranted. Accordingly I am unable to give any weight to this concern. 9. I conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would be in keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it seeks to secure a high standard of design. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/17/3189039 3 Conditions and Conclusion 10. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should succeed and planning permission be granted. 11. Conditions specifying the plans and requiring details to be agreed of the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the extension are needed to provide certainty and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Roy Merrett INSPECTOR