To demolish existing garage. Proposed new larger garage on similar footprint

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 May 2018 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/18/3193912 184 North Street, Romford RM1 1DR  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 S Akhtar against the decision of London Borough of Havering.  The application Ref P.1611.17, dated 28 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2017.  The development proposed is to demolish existing garage. Proposed new larger garage on similar footprint. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish an existing garage and erect a new larger garage on a similar footprint in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. P.1611.17, dated 28 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: Block plan no.1079/03 scale 1/50; Elevations no. 1079/05 scale 1/50; & Plan & Location Plan no.1079/04 scales 1/50 & 1/1250. (3) The garage hereby permitted shall be kept available at all times for the parking of motor vehicles by the occupants of the residential dwelling known as 184 North Street, Romford and their visitors and for no other purpose. (4) The materials to be used in the garage hereby permitted shall be in strict accordance with those specified within section 10 of the planning application form dated 28 September 2017. Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located at the junction of North Street and Park Drive. There is some off road parking at the front of the dwelling accessed from North Street. There is a small garden area to the rear of the dwelling which is fenced off. To the rear (north east) of the dwelling and garden there is an open area covered in hardstanding and to the rear of that there is a single garage. The open area and the garage are Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3193912 2 accessed from Park Drive and are on a rising gradient. Opposite the open area and the garage is a large operational bus garage which is accessed from Park Drive but whose main frontage is on North Street. 4. It is proposed to demolish the existing garage and to erect a double garage for use for the parking of vehicles in association with the domestic dwelling. The garage would be about 3m high with a flat roof. It would be about 6.3m wide and it would stand back from the public pavement by about 4.8m. It would have a roller shutter door at the front. 5. The proposed garage would not appear unduly large or high. It would be well set back from the pavement. From Park Drive it would in part be seen against a backdrop of higher buildings and/or trees. It would be made of facing brick and would not appear unduly commercial in appearance. Its north east (side) and rear elevation would back on to an L-shaped vehicular access to the property next to no.184. 6. I conclude therefore that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area and would not be contrary to policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD (adopted 2008). Conditions 7. The Council suggested a number of conditions in the event that the appeal should be allowed. I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is built in accordance with the submitted plans, for the avoidance of doubt. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, I have imposed a condition ensuing that the materials used are as set out in section 10 of the planning application form. It is necessary in my view to impose a condition which ensures that the building is used only for parking purposes associated with the domestic dwelling. It is not physically very close to the dwelling but the application is put forward on the basis that its use will be a garage use associated with the domestic dwelling and so it is appropriate to impose the condition. The Council has suggested that permitted development rights to insert windows in some of the elevations are removed. However, given the surrounding land uses, I do not consider such a condition is necessary or that there are the exceptional circumstances present to remove such PD rights. Conclusion 8. Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR