Proposed basement garage (resubmission)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 July 2020 by Andreea Spataru BA (Hons) MA Decision by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 August 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/M3455/D/20/3247937 10 Jasper Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent • 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 Ecclestone against the decision of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. • The application Ref 64478, dated 10 September 2019, was refused by notice dated 7 January 2020. • The development proposed is described as “proposed basement garage (resubmission).” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and on the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site relates to a mid-terraced dwelling, located on the northern side of Jasper Street, opposite the Sacred Heart Catholic Church, which is a listed building. The long row of terraced dwellings within which the appeal dwelling stands are positioned at an elevated level and follow the same building line. Most of them have a small garden and a low boundary treatment to the front. The uniform appearance of this row of terraces is a positive feature of the street scene. 5. The proposal seeks to construct a single storey flat-roofed garage to the front. The garage would project along most of the width of the front elevation and would infill the existing forecourt. The front elevation of the garage, which includes a roller shutter door, would act as the front boundary of the site. The concrete flat roof would be planted to have the appearance of a roof garden. 6. The garage would be highly visible due to its siting in relation to the host dwelling and the prominent position of the appeal property within the street scene. The introduction of a garage beyond the established building line, the Appeal Decision APP/M3455/D/20/3247937 2 loss of the open area of the forecourt, and the disruption to the proportions of the dwelling would unbalance the regular pattern and rhythm of the terrace. Thus, it would result in an incongruous addition to the host property and to the street scene. 7. The inappropriateness of the garage would be accentuated by its height, which would exceed that of the brick boundary treatments adjacent to the appeal site, and by the introduction of a roller shutter door. The matching brickwork and the roof garden would not be sufficient to successfully integrate the garage into the row of houses. Thus, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to a pitched roof garage that is located on the southern side of Jasper Street, which I have observed during my site visit. I do not consider the proposal directly comparable to the existing garage, particularly because of its siting, as the existing garage does not form part of the row of terraced properties. I have also noted the boundary treatment of property No 6 Jasper Street; this does not reflect the prevailing boundary treatment of the terrace and does not provide appropriate justification for the proposal. 9. The site is not within a Conservation Area but nevertheless paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. The Framework goes on to advise at paragraph 127 that amongst other things, developments should add to the overall quality of the area; be sympathetic to local character, and establish or maintain a strong sense of place using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to be a distinctive place to live. For the reasons set out above the proposal would not achieve these aims. Consequently, it does not constitute the sustainable development the Framework seeks to promote. 10. The Council has not identified the proposal as having a harmful impact on the setting of the listed building. Given the scale and siting of the proposal, I am satisfied from all I have seen and read that it would have a neutral impact on the significance of this heritage asset and its setting. Accordingly, it would meet the requirements of S66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building. 11. Notwithstanding that, I conclude that through a combination of its siting, scale and design the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and of the area. Therefore, the development would be contrary to the objectives of Policy CSP1 of the Newcastle-under-Lime and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy and Policy R23 of the Newcastle-under- Lime and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance, which together require, amongst other things, that development is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting and integrates well within the surrounding local area. 12. Whilst the Local Plan policy pre-dates the introduction of the Framework in 2012, it is consistent with the aims of the Framework, as set out above. Accordingly, whilst I have taken into account the appellant’s view on the matter, the policy, whilst a number of years old, is not out of date. Appeal Decision APP/M3455/D/20/3247937 3 Other Matter 13. I acknowledge that the proposal would provide off-road parking and storage space for the appellant’s car and bikes. This is a private benefit of the proposal. However, such benefit does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Andreea Spataru APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Susan Ashworth INSPECTOR