Erection of a two-storey extension of detached garage along with single-storey link extension between garage and existing dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 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/P3610/D/18/3213624 3 Nelson Walk, Epsom, KT19 7LR  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 Newbould against the decision of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00479/FLH, dated 2 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 August 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey extension of detached garage along with single-storey link extension between garage and existing dwelling house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to erect a two-storey extension of detached garage along with single-storey link extension between garage and existing dwelling house at 3 Nelson Walk, Epsom, KT19 7LR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/00479/FLH, dated 2 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan and Drg Nos 218/03/01 and 218/03/02B. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing buildings. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey, detached dwelling located at the end of a cul-de-sac within a wider residential estate and faces towards an area of open play space. It has a detached, double garage set forward, to one side of, and Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/18/3213624 2 perpendicular to the house, the rear of which backs on to a footpath that leads into the play area and which links with other parts of the estate. 4. The proposal is to extend the garage sideways, with a full height addition that would project to the side of the dwelling, and which would be attached to its side elevation with a single-storey link. 5. When passing the site along the adjacent footpath, the garage is seen as a prominent structure that extends up to the boundary of the plot. Nevertheless, it is clearly interpreted as an adjunct to the dwelling and sits comfortably in its setting. The extension would be fairly bulky but would reflect the scale and form of the existing garage and, with the use matching materials, it would appear as a reasonably seamless addition. Moreover, when seen from the footpath it would appear either against the backdrop of the garage or else tucked into an enclosed space to the side of the dwelling where it would become easily assimilated without intruding into any wider aspects of the locality. 6. Any sight of the extension from the open space to the front of No 3 would be limited. Furthermore, despite some consistency to the local architecture in general, the dwellings display many differences in terms of detailing and layout and therefore allow for modifications without impacting upon any sense or rhythm or uniformity. 7. The single-storey link would be modest in size and impact, barely detectable beyond the confines of the appeal site. 8. Overall, whilst the proposal would add to the bulk and mass of built form at No 3, it would be well related to the existing buildings without harm to the wider character or appearance of the area. There would therefore be no conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Borough Adopted Core Strategy 2007 insofar as they seek to reinforce and protect the local distinctiveness of the environment. Neither do I detect any conflict with the similar objectives of Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015. Conditions 9. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area a condition is necessary to ensure that the materials of construction match those used on the existing buildings. 10. The extension would form an obvious and integrated part of the existing dwelling and its associated garage. I see no reason to impose a condition that would restrict occupancy of the linked addition as an independent dwelling unit, as suggested by the Council. In any event, such use would amount to development that would require planning permission in its own right. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR