To convert existing double garage and store at ground level to photographic studio, fit out existing first floor loft storage area to form residential annexe. New enclosed two-storey extension adjacent to west gable to provide access to residential annexe

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Character & Appearance
Extensions
Rural Impact

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 July 2024 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2ND August 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/D/24/3344251 The Bell House, Old Mead Road, Henham, Hertfordshire CM22 6JL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs R McGown against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application Ref is UTT/24/0073/HHF. • The development proposed is to convert existing double garage and store at ground level to photographic studio, fit out existing first floor loft storage area to form residential annexe. New enclosed two-storey extension adjacent to west gable to provide access to residential annexe . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the appearance of the surrounding streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal property lies in a countryside location and contains a detached dwelling, detached garage and various small outbuildings. The dwelling is of traditional built form. The detached garage and outbuildings are ancillary buildings to the dwelling. The ancillary nature allows for the dwelling to predominate within the site. The built form in the surrounding area is predominately residential and includes recent residential development. 4. Saved Policies GEN2 and H8 in the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005), require development to be compatible with the appearance of surrounding buildings. Saved Local Plan Policy S7 states that that development will only be permitted in the countryside if its appearance protects or enhances the particular character of the part of the countryside within which it is set or if there is a special reason why the development in the form proposed needs to be there. These parts of the saved policies are broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework where the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character. 5. The proposal seeks to convert the existing garage and adjoining store with a proposed side extension to accommodate a staircase. On the southern elevation there would be first floor dormer windows over a large part of the roof structure. In Appeal Decision APP/C1570/D/24/3344251 2 addition, at ground floor level, the garage doors would be replaced with glazed folding doors. 6. Due to the proposed design, I consider that the proposal would appear as a secondary residential unit within the site. The disproportionate and unsympathetic additions of the rear extension and dormers would be to the detriment of the ancillary character and appearance of the garage building. As such, the ancillary character and appearance of the garage building would be lost. It would fail to enhance the character or appearance of the wider property and due to its design, it would fail to respect the original character and appearance of the garage building. As such, the proposal would create incongruous additions to the building, which would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the wider property. In such a prominent location, for the same reasons, this would be to the detriment of the appearance of the surrounding streetscene. 7. In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to all matters raised. For the above reasons, I consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the appearance of the surrounding streetscene. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to saved Local Plan Policies S7, GEN2 and H8 and contrary to the Framework. 8. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. INSPECTOR J L Cheesley
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →