Attached double garage at the side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2018 by Alexander Walker MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/D/18/3205145 28 Fairford Road, Liverpool L14 1PJ  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 Gemma Carter against the decision of Liverpool City Council.  The application Ref 18H/0803, dated 16 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2018.  The development proposed is an attached double garage at the side. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Since the appeal was submitted, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published and this is a material consideration which should be taken into account from the date of its publication. I have therefore determined the appeal in light of the revised Framework. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey end terrace dwelling located on the corner of Fairford Road and Crayford Crescent. The area is predominantly residential comprising two-storey, semi-detached and terraced properties that are of a similar architectural style. The set-back position of the dwellings, the low boundary treatments with the road and the wide, spacious corners make a positive contribution to the openness of the area. 5. The Council raise no concerns regarding the extension to the front of the dwelling. Based on the evidence before me and the observations I made on site I find no reason to conclude otherwise. 6. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1 (SPG1) 2001 provides guidance on house extensions. It states that single-storey extensions on corner plots should be set back by a minimum of 1m from the boundary, not exceed half the width of the existing house and have a pitched roof. Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3205145 2 7. SPG1 pre-dates the Liverpool City Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2002 and the Framework. Notwithstanding this, the guidance is still relevant for the assessment of corner extensions and their effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I attribute it significant weight. 8. The proposed garage would have a pitched roof. Whilst it would be set slightly back from the boundary with the adjacent property, No 9 Clayford Crescent this would be less than 1m. However, given the separation distance between the two dwellings, I do not consider that this would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area. 9. The width of the existing dwelling is approximately 5.5m. The proposed garage would have a width of 4.3m. Consequently, the garage would be approximately 1.5m wider than half the width of the host dwelling. As such, it would be far in excess of the guidance set out in SPG1. 10. I acknowledge that SPG1 is guidance only and there may be instances where exceeding the guidance would be acceptable. However, in this instance, given the significant width of the garage in comparison to the host dwelling, it would appear as a disproportionate addition that would dominate, and fail to appear subservient to, the host dwelling. Consequently, as a result of the site’s prominent position within the streetscene it would appear as an incongruous feature. Whilst the garage would not extend beyond the forward building line of properties fronting Clayford Crescent, it would nevertheless appear prominent and dominant in the streetscene when viewed from Fairford Road and the junction with Clayford Crescent. 11. I note that there are a number of other extensions and additions to properties on corner plots within the vicinity of the appeal site. However, the Council’s evidence indicates that these are either not as wide as the proposal, were granted planning permission under a different development plan or do not benefit from planning permission. Consequently, I find no direct comparison between these schemes and the proposal before me. Accordingly, I attribute them limited weight. 12. The extension would utilise materials in keeping with the existing dwelling. However, I do not consider that this would sufficiently mitigate the harm caused by reason of the extension’s width. 13. Manual for Streets (MfS) sets out specific dimensions for garages. The appellant contends that a garage that would not exceed the guidance in SPG1 would not meet the dimensions for garages set out in MfS. However, the guidance in MfS only has regard to what would be a practical size for a garage. It does not consider the effect such a garage would have on the character and appearance of an area. There is no evidence before me that the need for the garage outweighs the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. 14. I find therefore that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Polices H8 and HD18 of the UDP, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that extensions respect the character of the existing dwelling and their scale and massing relate well to its locality. It would also fail to accord with the guidance set out in SPG1. Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3205145 3 15. I note that Policy H8 of the UDP is not referred to in the reasons for refusal. However, it is cited in the Council’s Case Officer Report and is relevant to the proposed development. Furthermore, Policy HD18 of the UDP relates to development in general and is no less relevant to house extensions than to large scale development. Consequently, I consider that both of these policies are relevant and I attribute them substantial weight. Other Matters 16. I have considered the Council’s argument that the proposal would set a precedent for similar developments in the area. However, no directly similar or comparable sites to which this might apply have been presented to me. Each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern of this nature does not justify, by itself, withholding permission in this case. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, having regard to all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Alexander Walker INSPECTOR