Detached garage to front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 February 2022 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 March 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/M2325/D/21/3289560 21 Mill View, Freckleton, PR4 1YQ • 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 T Donaldson against the decision of Fylde Borough Council. • The application Ref 21/0731, dated 4 August 2021, was refused by notice dated 28 September 2021. • The development proposed is a detached garage to front garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is an extended detached dormer bungalow with a detached garage to the rear. It is situated at the end of Mill View, which is a residential cul-de-sac largely comprising a mix of detached dormer bungalows and two storey semi-detached dwellings. 4. Whilst most dwellings along Mill View face directly towards the road, the appeal property is set at an angle, which to some degree, reflects its location at the corner of a hammerhead turning at the end of the cul-de-sac. As a consequence of this, its frontage to Mill View appears narrower than and looks across, the frontages of neighbouring dwellings. 5. Dwellings along Mill View are set well back from the road behind gardens and parking areas and have gardens to the rear. During my site visit, I observed that dwellings along Mill View tend to have detached and occasionally semi- detached garages, set further away from the road than the host dwelling, mostly towards or within rear gardens. 6. The set back of dwellings from the road combines with the presence of front gardens, very low front boundary walls, planting and occasional hedgerows, to afford the area an attractive green and spacious character. Appeal Decision APP/M2325/D/21/3289560 2 7. During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings have been extended or altered in some way and that such changes tend to appear in keeping with their surroundings. 8. The proposal would comprise a large, tall L-shaped double-garage. It would be positioned well forward of the front elevation of the host dwelling and is of such a scale and design that it would also wrap around part of the side of the house. 9. As such, the proposal would be sited in a prominent position and would partly obscure the front of the host dwelling. I find this, combined with the scale and siting of the proposal, would result in it appearing as an unduly dominant feature within the garden and parking area to the front of the dwelling. 10.The harmful effect of the above would be exacerbated as a result of the incongruous appearance of the proposal. As noted above, other garages along Mill View are set back behind dwellings. As a large, tall ancillary building within a garden frontage close to the road, the proposed development would draw the eye as an alien feature and would detract from the identified attributes of its surroudings. 11.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan1 Policy GD7, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Conclusion 12.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR 1 Fylde Local Plan to 2032 (2021).