Erection of a garage on driveway of front garden of existing property, 3m wide X 5.4m long X 4m high of block and rendered, having a pitch and hip roof tiled, and timber garage doors 7ft X 7ft

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3445/D/18/3211524 101 Quince, Amington, Tamworth B77 4ET • 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 Cooper against the decision of Tamworth Borough Council. • The application Ref 0368/2018 was refused by notice dated 10 September 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a garage on driveway of front garden of existing property, 3m wide X 5.4m long X 4m high of block and rendered, having a pitch and hip roof tiled, and timber garage doors 7ft X 7ft. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The proposal is to erect a detached garage at the front of the appeal property, which is bungalow in a modern estate style residential area, wherein buildings are similar in age although vary in size, design and type. No 101 is situated towards the end of a curved driveway that spurs from the main road, which is called Quince. 4. The new addition would be a dual pitched roof building and constructed of materials to match the main dwelling. The new side and rear elevations would stand just behind a timber fence that marks the site’s highway frontage, beyond which is a public footway. As part of the proposal, part of the driveway would also be resurfaced. 5. Along the driveway that serves No 101, dwellings are set back from the road and have front gardens free of any significant freestanding buildings. These characteristics, coupled with the broadly open frontages of other properties, create a spacious feel to the street scene. By introducing new built form close to the site’s highway frontage, the proposal would erode this sense of openness and be out of keeping with the established pattern of existing development. 6. The existing boundary fence would partly screen the proposal when seen from the adjacent public footway. Views of the new building would, however, be possible from the highway on the immediate approach to the site and also from Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/D/18/3211524 2 the adjacent properties. From these vantage points, the new garage would draw the eye as a prominent feature in the local street scene notwithstanding its position towards the end of the driveway. As the only obvious example of such development in the area immediately around the site, the appeal scheme would be obtrusive and an uncharacteristic addition. 7. From what I saw, some properties further along Quince have garages and front projections and extensions that are visible from the road. However, these properties do not visually ‘read’ as part of the same streetscape as the site, which is largely free of built form close to the highway. I agree that on street and forecourt vehicle parking is also a noticeable feature of Quince and other nearby roads. Whether or not parked cars detract from the area’s character and appearance, the visual impact of the proposed built form would have a permanence that would differ to the transient nature of vehicles. 8. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy EN5 of the Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006 - 2031. This policy states that poor design or design that fails to take the opportunities available to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions will be refused. The development sought would also be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it aims to ensure that development achieves a high standard of design and requires development to add to the overall quality of the area. 9. Once in place, the proposed garage would provide covered storage for the appellant’s classic car. It would also provide security for the appellant’s property. Others have not raised an objection. However, these matters do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR