Garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1st July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/D/19/3226451 14 Glebe Road, Barrington, Cambridge, CB22 7RP • 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 and Mrs N Cobley against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref S/0097/19/FL, dated 2 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2019. • The development proposed is a garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garage at 14 Glebe Road, Barrington, Cambridge, CB22 7RP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S/0097/19/FL, dated 2 January 2019, 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: 02, 03, 04, 05, 06. 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 building. Reasons 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Glebe Road is a no-through road which lies on the edge of the village of Barrington. The detached and semi-detached dwellings are set back from the road behind good sized front gardens and grass verges, giving it a spacious, suburban character. Most dwellings have garages at the side of the property and I did not see any garages set forward of dwellings. 3. The appeal site comprises a modern detached two storey house which is bounded on one side by a railway line. There is a crossing over the railway line which separates the appeal site from further dwellings along this side of the road. It has had previous extensions and a garage was withdrawn from a previously approved permission following the Council’s officer’s concerns regarding the character of the area. Appeal Decision APP/W0530/D/19/3226451 2 4. The current proposal is for a detached garage to the front of the property which would be sited behind an existing hedge along the front boundary. It would have a pitched roof which would match that of the house. At some 3.5m in height, it would be largely screened by the existing high hedge on the front boundary and by tall trees along the side boundary with the railway line. As such it would not be seen when approaching the site from the village. In the approach from the head of Glebe Road, the garage would be largely screened by other high hedges along this side of the road. Whilst it would be clearly seen from outside the site and from the junction with Bendyshe Way opposite, the presence of the hedge and the trees would help it assimilate easily into the street scene. 5. This, together with its relatively small scale (which would be less than that of a full width double garage) and a design which reflects that of the house would result in an acceptable appearance which would not significantly harm the spacious character of the street scene. Given its unique position within Glebe Road adjacent to the railway line it would not set a precedent for further frontage garages which would be determined on their merits. 6. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in order to provide certainty. A condition requiring matching external materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. 7. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. It would accord with the Council’s development plan policy HQ/1(a) in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) which seeks to ensure that proposals preserve or enhance the character of the area and respond to the context in the wider landscape and to the National Planning Policy Framework which has similar objectives. There are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise and it should be allowed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector