Addition of attached single storey garage to the side of the bungalow. Removal of turret and widening of front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 December 2018 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/18/3213012 6 Sea Gate View, Sewerby, YO15 1ET  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 Mrs Nicola Mitchell against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council.  The application Ref 18/00955/PLF, dated 21 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 4 September 2018.  The development proposed is addition of attached single storey garage to the side of the bungalow. Removal of turret and widening of front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of the proposal on the application form also states “In-keeping with current design and surrounding properties. Note – the design has taken into consideration the neighbours views and does not detract from this.” 3. The application reference number is taken from the Council’s officer’s report. The “Application No.” on the Council’s decision notice appears as “DC/18/00955/PLF/EASTNN PP-06838249.” 4. Site visits to the appeal property and to the neighbouring property, No 5 Sea Gate View, were arranged. There was no response from the appellant’s property but I was able to see all that I needed to from the public domain and from No 5. 5. A number of objections have been made to the proposal the subject of this appeal. Some of these refer to legal matters raising issues that are beyond the scope of this decision. This decision focuses on relevant planning matters. Main Issue 6. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 7. The appeal property, No 6 Sea Gate View, is a large brick-built detached bungalow with a double garage with adjoining building to the rear. The property has a large lawn and long driveway to the front. Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/18/3213012 2 8. No 6 is located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac, characterised to some considerable degree by the presence of brick-built bungalows of modest size, set back from Sea Gate View behind large lawned areas. Lawns largely extend to Sea Gate View without boundary walls, fences or planting. Sea Gate View itself leads towards public open space, largely in the form of open grassland, with expansive outlooks to the North Sea immediately beyond. 9. Together, the presence of modest bungalows, set well back from Sea Gate View behind open lawns, and the significant views over public open space to the sea, provide the area with an attractive open and spacious character. 10.During my site visit, I found that the presence of small gaps between bungalows, often comprising a driveway to a garage set towards the rear of each property, appears in keeping with and contributes towards the sense of spaciousness so characteristic of Sea Gate View. 11.In addition to the above, I also noted that the presence of these gaps adds to the cul-de-sac’s satisfying sense of uniformity, which arises as a result of the similarities in the design, spacing and materials of properties along Sea Gate View. 12.It is proposed to extend No 6 to the side closest to No 5. This would result in an extension that would largely fill the gap between the two properties, leaving only a relatively narrow pathway between them. In so doing, I find that the proposed development would appear to largely fill this important gap, to the detriment of the spacious attributes of the area identified above. 13.The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the proposal appearing inappropriately “squeezed into” the gap between Nos 5 and 6. This would, I find, result in a form of over-development that would fail to reflect the open, spacious and uniform qualities of the area . Furthermore, due to the close proximity of No 5, this is not something that is mitigated to any significant degree by the setting back of the garage from the front elevation of the appeal property. 14.Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan (2016), which together amongst other things, protect local character. Conclusion 15.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR