To a erect detached garage and convert existing garage into residential accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X3060/D/17/3190260 Landmark House, Jubilee Road, Finchampstead, Berkshire RG40 3RU  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 P Strange against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council.  The application Ref 172829, dated 21 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 November 2017.  The development proposed is to a erect detached garage and convert existing garage into residential accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to erect a detached garage and convert existing garage into residential accommodation at Landmark House, Jubilee Road, Finchampstead, Berkshire RG40 3RU in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. 172829, dated 21 September 2017 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: 1:1250 Site Location Plan, 5723/03E, 5723/07A, 5723/27, 5723/32A and 5723/33A. 3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in Landmark House. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The site relates to a large detached dwelling situated within generous grounds in a relatively isolated rural location. The dwelling is of modern construction and of a contemporary design with a varied and articulated architectural form. The core of the building is two storeys high with it stepping down to single storey towards its southern end, with a low pitched hipped roof. 4. The proposed garage would be forward of the principal elevation of the house, but would nonetheless still be set back from the road, which itself is partially Appeal Decision APP/X3060/D/17/3190260 2 screened by recent and semi-mature planting. The garage would be set into its respective plot such that its eaves and ridge height would be lower than that of the host dwelling adjacent. 5. I acknowledge that the Council’s Borough Design Guide recommends that garages should not be sited in front gardens, but should be to the side or rear of a dwelling, further they should not project forward of the building line of a property, however, each case must ultimately be assessed on its own merits. Whilst I accept that the proposed garage would be forward of the principal elevation of the host dwelling within what could be construed as front garden, it would not obscure the front elevation of the dwelling and would appear as a subordinate outbuilding serving its host. 6. I note that the built form of Landmark House as a result of this proposal would largely extend for the whole width of the site, but nonetheless, by virtue of its spacious character, well set back from the road and with ample rear garden remaining, I consider that the plot would not appear as over-developed. It is not appropriate for me to consider whether or not the addition of the proposed garage is necessary, as I must determine the proposal that is before me. However, by virtue of the design and form of the proposed garage building, even when assessed in combination with the first floor side extension, I find that it would not give rise to cumulative harm to the visual amenities of the area. 7. Overall, I consider that the impact upon the rural street scene would be limited and a detached outbuilding of relatively modest proportions to serve a dwelling of the scale of Landmark House would not be out of character with its surroundings. Consequently, I consider that by reason of its siting and scale, the proposed garage would not give rise to an overdevelopment or urbanising effect on the countryside. 8. The proposal complies with Policies CP1, CP3 and CP11 of the Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document January 2010 and Policies CC01 and CC02 of the Wokingham Borough Development Plan Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan February 2014. Together these seek to maintain or enhance the high quality of the environment, that proposals are of an appropriate scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character to the area, have no detrimental impact upon landscape, contribute to a sense of place in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings, and do not lead to excessive encroachment or expansion to development away from the original buildings. I do not find LP Policy CC02 to be of particular relevance as it refers to proposals within development limits. Conclusion and Conditions 9. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 10. Other than the standard time condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring the external materials to be used in the construction of the extensions to match those of the existing building. In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area, this is an appropriate condition. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper Appeal Decision APP/X3060/D/17/3190260 3 planning, a condition requiring that the development is carried out with the approved plans is imposed. 11. The Council has recommended that a condition be imposed that requires the garage accommodation to be kept available for the parking of vehicles ancillary to the residential use of the site at all times, the reason for this is to ensure that adequate parking space is available on the site so as to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking, in the interests of highway safety and convenience. I found on my site visit that the property has an extensive existing parking and turning area to the frontage which would not be lost by the proposal as the garage would be constructed within an existing area of raised lawn. Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that the existing integral garage would be converted into habitable accommodation, I find that there would be ample parking retained on-site and it has not been demonstrated that it is necessary to impose such a condition. C J Tivey INSPECTOR