Erection of a double garage on off-street parking area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3635/D/18/3206638 Cheyne Cottage, 7 Oaks Road, Stanwell, Middlesex TW19 7JU  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 Lee Gibbons against the decision of Spelthorne Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00631/HOU, dated 21 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 June 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a double garage on off-street parking area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Stanwell Conservation Area and the setting of Cheyne Cottage, a Grade II Listed Building. Reasons 3. Cheyne Cottage is a Grade II listed building located within a predominantly residential area and within Stanwell Conservation Area (CA). It is a two-storey, painted brick building from the mid-19th century with picturesque glazing to its front elevation and a pitched slate roof with verges and moulded projecting eaves cornice. It sits immediately at the back edge of the footpath, unlike the more contemporary properties along Oaks Road, and stands proud as an individual and prominent piece of notable architecture from its time that is recognised as a designated heritage asset for the quality of its detailed design. The appeal site is located on the fringe of the CA which extends to the south. I saw that its special character is largely derived from the age and quality of the buildings, which are laid out in an ad-hoc and rather random pattern, centred around a spacious War Memorial at the heart of the original Stanwell village. 4. Cheyne Cottage has a flat roof extension to one side that was built in the 1980s with materials to match the main dwelling. The flank wall to this extension forms part of a three-sided walled enclosure to the edge of the appeal site and which is open faced, providing a concrete hardstand with space for two cars to Appeal Decision APP/Z3635/D/18/3206638 2 park parallel with each other and perpendicular to the road. The proposal is to erect a double-width, free standing garage within this space. 5. The garage would span almost the entire width of the existing open space to the side of Cheyne Cottage and would be built as a pre-fabricated structure with an asymmetrical, shallow pitched roof over and a pair of forward-facing steel garage doors. 6. Despite the use of a brick façade and slate effect tiles to the front, and paintwork to match the house, the garage would appear as a purely utilitarian structure placed within a confined area with little further evidence of it being comfortable or assimilated into its surroundings. The use of textured concrete panels to its walls and galvanised steel sheeting for its rear roof slope would be evident from beyond the site, seen rising above the walled enclosures. Neither the materials nor the building’s form would show any respect for the architectural composition of Cheyne Cottage or its immediate surroundings. 7. By reason of its size, siting and design, I find that the building would appear awkward and incongruous in its setting. In this regard it would be harmful to the general character and appearance of the area. It follows therefore that the character and appearance of the CA would be neither preserved nor enhanced, which would be detrimental to the area’s significance as a heritage asset. In addition, the building’s close association with Cheyne Cottage means that its unsympathetic presence would detract from the setting of this Listed Building, the significance of which as a heritage asset would also be harmed. Although in both instances the harm that I have identified may be less than substantial, I nevertheless attach considerable weight to these harms given the importance that is placed upon the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment by the National Planning Policy Framework. 8. The appellant has suggested that the garage would be in-keeping with other similar structures within the CA. However, I saw none that were comparable in terms of their siting, appearance or visual impact. Although the concrete surface to the existing hardstand is not especially attractive, I did not find the space overall to be particularly unappealing or visually harmful. Neither is there any substantive evidence before me that this private land has been the subject of any problematic fly-tipping. The proposal would not bring about any public benefits that would outweigh the harms to the significance of each of the heritage assets. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given, I conclude that the garage would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would neither preserve the setting of the Listed Building. There would therefore be conflict with Policies EN1, EN5 and EN6 of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009 insofar as they deal with the design of new development and the effect of development upon the historic environment. 10. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR