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 FreeTechnical 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.