Demolition of three garages and the erection of a garage to accommodate a horsebox

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 August 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4205/D/18/3205848 32 Rainshaw Street, Astley Bridge, Bolton, BL1 8QX  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 Robert Foster against the decision of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 02679/18, dated 14 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 April 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of three garages and the erection of a garage to accommodate a horsebox. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposed garage on:  The character and appearance of the area around Rainshaw Street, and  The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of light and outlook. Reasons 3. No 32 is a detached bungalow situated on the southern side of Rainshaw Street. Rainshaw Street has two-storey houses on its northern side whilst on its southern side there are bungalows continuing down from the appeal property eastwards to the end of the road. There is a detached double garage to the side of No 32 with a driveway immediately to the west that leads to a complex of six garages. The garages face to the west and are aligned from north to south, backing onto the rear garden of No 32. At the end of the driveway and the row of garages is a concrete panel wall which separates the appeal site from the adjacent house to the rear at No 43 Holly Mill Crescent. To the west of the appeal site is a large telephone exchange building. 4. The proposed development would involve the demolition of three garages at the southern end of the row, and the construction of a large garage, at right angles to the row, across the entire rear of the garage complex. It would be some 10 metres wide and 8.7 metres deep. It would have a height of around 3.5 metres to the eaves and an overall height of 5.1 metres to the ridge. The appellant indicates that the garage would be used to accommodate a horsebox and trailer which are currently kept for part of the year in the driveway. Appeal Decision APP/N4205/D/18/3205848 2 Character and appearance 5. The appeal property comprises a bungalow with detached double garage to the front of the plot and a rear garden with a separate garage complex to the rear. The garages are of a small, “lock-up” type and extend the full depth of the plot at the rear of the house and double garage. The proposed new garage would have a footprint of around 90 sq metres and would have an overall height of over 5 metres. On this basis, it would appear to be of a comparable size to the bungalow itself and out of scale for an outbuilding to a residential property of this type and size. 6. In terms of its immediate surroundings, it would be flanked by a large telephone exchange that occupies the adjacent plot and which extends beyond the rear of the appeal site. By virtue of the topography of the area, the telephone exchange is set a little higher than the ground level of the appeal site and has height of around 3.5 – 4 metres along the boundary. There are also 2-storey houses to the rear of the appeal site. I do not consider that the proposed garage would necessarily appear out of scale with these buildings, but this does not compensate for the unsympathetic scale of the garage in relation to the rest of the appeal site and its residential context at the eastern end of Rainshaw Street. 7. On this issue, therefore, I find that the proposed garage would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and, as a consequence, to the wider area around Rainshaw Street. It would conflict with Policy CG3 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS), which requires development to be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of scale, massing, grain and form. Living conditions 8. The proposed garage would be sited across the rear of the existing garage court, along the boundary with the adjacent house at No 43 Holly Mill Crescent. This would result in a 10 metre long wall extending the full depth of the rear garden at No 43. It would be 3.5 metres high at the eaves, sloping back to an overall height of 5.1 metres at the ridge. Due to the slope of the land, the rear garden at No 43 steps down from a level approximating to the ground level of the appeal site at its western end, to a lower level nearer to the house itself. On this basis, the wall of the proposed garage would appear even higher from the rear of the house and the garden area closest to its rear elevation. 9. The appellant notes that the garden at No 43 lies to the south of the appeal site and that the proposed garage would not adversely affect sunlight at the rear of that property. I accept that the effect on sunlight would be minimal. However, the height and length of the rear wall of the garage would appear oppressive to occupiers of No 43, and this would add to the fact that the back garden already looks directly out onto the tall blank wall of the rear portion of the telephone exchange building. 10. The appellant also contends that the current concrete wall at the rear of the appeal site is unattractive and that the new brick garage wall would be more in keeping with the area. I agree that the current wall has an industrial look that is unsympathetic to its context. However, it is only around 1.7 metres high and the proposed garage wall would be twice that height, with a consequential harmful impact on the outlook from No 43. Appeal Decision APP/N4205/D/18/3205848 3 11. On this issue, therefore, I find that the proposed garage would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent No 43 Holly Mill Crescent by way of outlook. It would conflict with Policy CG4 of the CS, which requires that new development should protect the amenity of surrounding land uses and occupiers. Other Matter 12. Finally, the appellant indicates that he currently parks his horsebox in the driveway outside of the existing garages for part of the year, and that he has suffered vandalism. I have sympathy with his concerns. However, I note that there are now high gates at the entrance to the driveway and I have no details of dates or extent of damage or loss. In any case, this is not reason enough to allow the construction of a garage of a size that would be out of scale with the host property, and that would result in an oppressive outlook to the occupiers of a neighbouring dwelling. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR