Detached single storey double garage and summer room to garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Elaine Worthington BA (Hons) MTP MUED MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3195840 52 Grovehall Parade, Beeston, Leeds, LS11 7AE  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 Luqman Saddique against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/04712/FU, dated 16 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 November 2017.  The development proposed is a detached single storey double garage and summer room to garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The planning application form refers to the appeal property as 52 Grovehall Road. However, it is clear from the submitted location plan and the address used on both the Council’s decision notice and the subsequent appeal form that the proposal relates to 52 Grovehall Parade. In the interests of accuracy I have therefore used that address in my heading above. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are:  The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and  The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 50 Grovehall Parade, with particular reference to outlook and sunlight. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached house on the corner of Grovehall Parade and Grovehall Road. The proposal seeks the erection of a double garage at the end of the rear garden which would be accessed via Grovehall Road. It would replace an existing timber garage there which is accessed via a cross over and a tall timber gate. The proposed garage would be 13 metres long by 6 metres wide with a pitched roof with a height of 4 metres to the ridge and 2.2 metres to the eaves. It would have a gable end feature with a roller shutter door facing Grovehall Road and there would be a corresponding gable end on its rear elevation. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3195840 2 5. The Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that the size and scale of a garage should also reflect its function. It indicates that overly large garages and those with storage areas over may not be acceptable as their size and proportions are often inappropriate in a domestic garden setting (page 35). 6. I am aware that that the proposal was reduced in size during the Council’s consideration of the planning application and that the summerhouse element was removed. Even so, the garage would still be sizeable. Due to its considerable bulk and height, including its appreciable pitched roof, it would be a substantial structure that would appear much bigger than a typical domestic garage. Its imposing gable end features and large roller shutter door would add to this impression. As such, the proposal would introduce an unduly dominant and incongruous feature that would not be appropriate in its domestic garden setting. It would thus be out of scale with the host dwelling and would fail to appear ancillary to its residential use. 7. The garage would also be highly visible in the street scene. It would be sited very close to the appeal property’s flank boundary with Grovehall Road and, despite the existing boundary fence and evergreen hedge, would be prominent and obvious there. In my view, it would stand out as an obtrusive and unsympathetic addition that would be at odds with the residential character of the surrounding area. 8. I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy (Core Strategy) which seeks to promote good design and visually attractive developments. It would conflict with Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (UDP) which states that proposals should seek to resolve detailed planning considerations including design and to avoid loss of amenity. It would undermine UDP Policy BD6 which states that all extensions should respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building. The proposal would also be at odds with SPD Policy HDG1 which states that extensions, additions and alterations should respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling. Furthermore, it would fail to support the core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to always seek to secure high quality design. Living conditions 9. The garage would be located very close to the boundary with adjoining No 50 (around 700 mm away) which has a patio and seating area at the end of its garden. The garage’s rear elevation would extend along some 13 metres of the boundary with an overall height of 4 metres. The existing mature hedge on the boundary would be replaced with a 2.2 metre high fence along that section adjacent to the garage. 10. No 50’s garden is long and the proposal would be positioned well away from the house itself and would not affect that part of the garden nearest to the dwelling. The eaves of part of the garage would be around the same height as the proposed fence and its hipped roof would slope away from the boundary. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3195840 3 11. However, the ridge of the roof would still reach a considerable overall height of 4 metres. Moreover, the building’s tall gable end feature would directly face No 50. As such, the proposal would be clearly visible above the proposed fence along a significant stretch of No 50’s boundary. Taking all these factors into account, the proposed garage would dominate a good deal of the end of No 50’s rear garden. It would be seen from there at very close quarters as a large and oppressive feature that would lead to an undue sense of enclosure and give rise to an unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 50. 12. Due to its height, bulk and proximity to the boundary, along with its position directly to the south of its neighbour, the proposal would also lead to a loss of sunlight to No 50’s rear garden. The Council considers that this would occur when the sun is in the south during the mid-morning, afternoon and early evening. Whilst I note the appellant’s view that overshadowing would be minimal in the summer months due to the height of the sun, this would not be the case at other times. Overall I share the Council’s concern that the proposal would lead to the end section of No 50’s rear garden being in shade for more of the time and consider that an unsatisfactory loss off sunlight would arise. 13. I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 50 Grovehall Parade, with particular reference to outlook and sunlight. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy P10 which requires proposals to protect the visual, residential and general amenity of the area including (amongst other things) privacy and daylight and sunlight. It would conflict with UDP Policy GP5 which requires proposals to seek to avoid loss of amenity (amongst other things). It would also fail to support SPD Policy HDG2 which requires proposals to protect the amenity of neighbours, and the core planning principle of the Framework to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Other matters 14. The decision notice also includes a reason for refusal relating to the proposal’s potential to lead to the creation of a separate commercial planning unit. However, the garage is intended to accommodate the appellant’s own vehicles. A commercial use of the building does not form part of the appeal scheme and would require planning permission. I am also mindful that the use of the garage for domestic purposes only could be ensured by the imposition of a planning condition. As such, I do not regard this concern in itself to be a reason to resist planning permission. However, my findings on this matter do not alter my conclusions in relation to the main issues. 15. I have had regard to a certificate of proposed lawful development for an outbuilding at the appeal property which was approved in January 2018. Those plans show a structure that would cover more of the appeal property’s rear garden than the appeal proposal. Indeed, the appellant advises that it would be 3.5 metres longer than it. I also note the appellant’s argument that the appeal proposal would be better designed and more attractive than the alternative building and would appear less like a commercial premises. 16. Nevertheless, despite its functional appearance and wide roller shutter door, the permitted building has a flat roof that is limited in height to only 2.5 metres. As such, it is considerably lower than the appeal proposal, and overall would not be as substantial as it. Consequently, it would not have such an Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3195840 4 adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, or on the living conditions of No 50. Whilst I am satisfied that in the absence of the appeal scheme there is every likelihood that this fallback positon will be built, it is insufficient to justify the proposal and does not outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to the main issues. 17. I have considered the appellant’s reference to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, it has not been put to me that the development plan is absent, silent or that the relevant policies are out of date. This being so, and in the absence of any further information on this matter, I have seen nothing to demonstrate that the tilted balance described at paragraph 14 of the Framework applies in this instance. In terms of the three dimensions to sustainable development, since the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, it would fail to contribute to protecting and enhancing the built environment. Thus, it would not meet the environmental role of sustainable development (as set out at paragraph 7 of the Framework). Conclusion 18. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Elaine Worthington INSPECTOR