Erection of a three car garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 August 2018 by Mr Kim Bennett DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2260/D/18/3203941 East Northdown House, East Northdown, Margate CT9 3TS  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 Miles against the decision of Thanet District Council.  The application Ref FH/TH/17/1339, dated 11 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a three car garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a three car garage at East Northdown House, East Northdown, Margate CT9 3TS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FH/TH/17/1339, dated 11 September 2017,subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, unnumbered but titled as: location plan; block plan and roof plan; plans and elevations; side and rear elevations; sections through site showing relative height of proposed garage to existing building. 3) Before the commencement of any development above ground level, further details and samples of materials relating to bricks, roof tiles and cast iron conservation roof lights shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) Before the commencement of any development, further details and clarification on proposed levels and extent of excavation across the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) The building hereby permitted shall be used in association with and for purposes ancillary to, East Northdown House, and for no other purpose. Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/D/18/3203941 2 Main Issues 2. The main issues are; whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, and whether it would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises an area of open ground within a complex of buildings associated with East Northdown House. To the north is Mockett Cottage, comprising residential and workshop accommodation, whilst to the east is East Northdown Cottage. Both are listed buildings. Adjoining the site to the south is the end elevation of a long rectangular stable block. The site is on rising land from east to west, the result of fill materials being deposited at some stage in the past. The site is within the Northdown Conservation Area. 4. In 2017, the Council granted permission for a single storey triple garage on the site which had a double pitched roof (the 2017 permission)1. Notwithstanding that permission, the Council is concerned that the size, height and bulk of the proposed garage would not appear subservient to the nearby listed buildings. There is also concern that the reduction in land levels would appear contrived. 5. Because of the location within the Conservation Area, I have given special attention to the statutory test to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Similarly I have also given special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby listed buildings. 6. In the context of the above, I see no objections to the design of the proposed garage, which would complement the nearby buildings in terms of use of materials and the hipped and split roof form, including the use of barn hips, to reduce apparent bulk. According to the submitted plan, the garage would be over 20 metres away from the adjoining East Northdown Cottage and separated by the western boundary hedge to the curtilage of that property. It would also be some 14 metres to the south of the workshop adjoining Mockett Cottage. 7. In terms of height, the proposed excavation would mean that the ridge level would be below that of both nearby listed buildings, and also the adjoining stable block to the south. Whilst the Council considers the reduction in ground level would be contrived I do not consider that would be the case, since ground level conditions would be restored to something akin to their historic levels. In that respect, there was an open inspection pit at the time of my visit and I was able to observe the original ground level conditions below the filled material. Given that, and distances involved, I do not consider historic boundary walls or the listed buildings would be adversely affected by the proposed excavation of later fill material. 8. Aside from the above, the 2017 permission represents an important fallback position in my view, since irrespective of this decision, the Council has already accepted a sizeable building on the site. Although the currently proposed garage would be slightly deeper in plan form than that permitted, the width would be very similar. The bulk of the roof would be larger but with a lower eaves height because of the lowering of ground levels. The appellant also points out that the difference in roof height between the permitted scheme and 1 TH/17/0477 Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/D/18/3203941 3 the current proposal would not be significant. However when taking account of the proposed excavation, the apparent ridge height would actually be less than that of the permitted scheme. 9. Drawing the above together, I consider that the proposed garage would be subservient and have an acceptable relationship to the nearby listed buildings because of its sensitive design and use of materials, its spacing from those buildings and its proposed height. Its impact would also be very similar to that of the 2017 permission. The setting of nearby listed buildings would therefore be preserved, as would the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. It would also be consistent with Government policy within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). That policy was updated in a revised Framework issued in July 2018. However, policy in respect of setting of listed buildings remains the same in terms of reference to the potential for the significance of a heritage asset being harmed or lost through development within its setting. For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that would be the case. 10. Conditions requiring the development to be built in accordance with the approved plans, samples of materials and further clarification on levels, are all necessary in the interests of certainty and to ensure the building is acceptable in its context near to listed buildings. A condition requiring the workshop to be ancillary to the residential use is also necessary in the interests of nearby residential amenity. 11. Having regard to the above, the proposal would comply with Policy D1 of the Thanet Local Plan 2006, and policy within the Framework, in that it would respect the character of the surrounding area, including the setting of nearby listed buildings, particularly in scale and massing. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and planning permission granted. Kim Bennett INSPECTOR