Detached garage with home office above

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 14 April 2021 by H Miles BA (Hons), MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 APRIL 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2260/D/21/3269259 21E Nash Lane, Margate CT9 4EX • 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 G Masoura against the decision of Thanet District Council. • The application Ref FH/TH/20/1663, dated 3 December 2020, was refused by notice dated 28 January 2021. • The development proposed is detached garage with home office above. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Nash Lane as a whole does not have a unified appearance. However, it is characterised by small groups of houses that share the same qualities. Nos 21 and 21A-21E share features of their scale, materials and roof style and form a visually identifiable group. Nos 21A-E in particular are very similar. They are predominantly in brick and have fenestration and a central dormer window which contribute to their vertical emphasis. Render is used to the rear extension at 21E, which does not match the main dwelling, although due to its location and size it is not highly visible. There are also wide patio doors to the rear extension. However, the first floor and dormer windows nevertheless result in a vertical emphasis to this property. 4. Render is used in properties further along Nash Lane including those I saw on my site visit referred to as Eliots Close. However, these dwellings are of a very different character and are separate from the appeal site by reason of both their orientation and the physical separation from the old railway bridge. As such they do not form part of the appeal site’s immediate setting. 5. The proposed outbuilding would be wider than the host dwelling and its roof line would be almost level with the eaves on the host dwelling. Although it would be flat roofed, resulting in a lower overall height, it would nevertheless be a large building in this context. Whilst the ground level is lower than Nash Lane, the building would still be taller than the single storey rear extension, and it would be likely to be seen from the adjoining bridge. It also fronts Nash Lane. As such it would be highly visible in public views. Furthermore, the horizontal emphasis of the garage doors and windows, and the use of white render would be out of character with the host dwelling. Consequently, the Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/D/21/3269259 2 proposed outbuilding would be visually jarring, harmfully dominant and bulky in a prominent position resulting in an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene. 6. A number of cars park on the existing hardstanding, and a tent-like structure also used as a garage was in place at the time of my site visit. Such arrangements are not uncharacteristic of a residential area and are temporary. Therefore, any benefit from the removal of the cars and tent would not overcome the public and permanent harm from the proposed building. 7. The absence of a local design code or supplementary planning guidance does not negate that permission for development of poor design should be refused. 8. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policy QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan to 2031 (March 2020) and paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) which together set out principles to provide high quality design and well designed places which reinforce the local character of the area, amongst other things. Other Matters 9. The proposed development would provide a home office for the occupiers, however this is a mainly private benefit which would therefore not outweigh the public harm identified above. Conclusion 10. The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. H Miles INSPECTOR