Construction of a new detached garage and front wall
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Heritage & Conservation
Trees & Landscape
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 15 March 2023
by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14 April 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/D/23/3314772
57 Chalton Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville PO8 0PP
• 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 E Bryson against the decision of East Hampshire District
Council.
• The application, Ref. 29605/005, dated 17 May 2022 was refused by notice dated
2 November 2022.
• The development proposed is the construction of a new detached garage and front wall.
Application for Costs
1. An application for costs was made by Mrs E Bryson against East Hampshire
District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.
Decision
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of
a new detached garage and front wall at 57 Chalton Lane, Clanfield,
Waterlooville in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 29605/005,
dated 17 May 2022 as amended and subject to the conditions in the attached
Schedule.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage on the character and
appearance of the street scene of Chalton Lane.
Reasons
4. The officer’s report on the appeal application refers to paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4
of the Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development SPD July
2018 which are particularly relevant in this case and thereby merit repetition.
‘3.2 In general, outbuildings should be situated in an inconspicuous position
when viewed from the public realm. It will rarely be considered acceptable to
site outbuildings in front of the existing property, as it would not appear
subservient to the main dwelling and could conflict with any established building
lines……….. ………… 3.4 Garages should be set back from the main building
line’.
5. This guidance has informed the analysis in the report and carried through to a
conclusion that the proposal would be in harmful conflict with Policy CP29:
‘Design’ of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy 2014
Appeal Decision APP/M1710/D/23/3314772
2
(‘the Local Plan’) which sets out 10 requirements to ensure that development is
of a high standard and safeguards the quality of the District’s built environment.
6. The Council’s objection is that the proposed garage would be a large and
prominent feature forward of the dwelling and thereby out of keeping with the
character of the area, given that there is a consistent building line along Chalton
Lane with no outbuildings positioned forward of houses in the near vicinity.
7. Whilst it is true that there is a noticeable building line along Chalton Lane, this
is somewhat irregular in depth along this section of the road. And combined
with the wide variety of house designs and front curtilage / boundary
treatments, with in some cases substantial vegetation, there is no ‘single street
view’ that has enough significance as a visual entity to be a defining
characteristic of the locality.
8. Instead, rather than the dwellings being recognisable as a collective group or as
establishing an identifiable rhythm in Chalton Lane, the perception is more one
of detached houses that are read individually, with the only common
denominator being set well back from the road. In these circumstances, I
consider there is scope for a rare exception to be made to the SPD guidance in
any case where the development would be discreet rather than draw the eye as
an obtrusive feature.
9. In respect of No. 57 this occurs because the front garden is large enough for
the proposed garage to be ‘tucked into’ the boundary with No. 53 and for it not
to cut across roadside views of the dwelling. In addition to its recessed position
the development would for the most part be screened from the road by the
existing vegetation, and I consider its fully hipped roof with an eaves height of
2.5m would ensure the garage would appear as subservient to the house. And
provided the hedge and other vegetation is retained at their existing height or
greater, the proposed wall and railings would be acceptable in the street scene,
especially as this formal boundary treatment would harmonise with the
adjoining front wall of No. 53.
10. As regards the setting of a precedent, whilst I am satisfied that on this site the
garage would be acceptable for the reasons explained, there are other front
curtilages that, because of one or more considerations of their smaller size,
openness and siting as regards the road and adjoining properties, would be
clearly unsuitable for a building to the front of the dwelling. However, I consider
that the circumstances at No. 57 enable an exception to be made as allowed for
in the aforementioned SPD, albeit ‘rarely’. Accordingly, subject to conditions the
appeal can be allowed without a harmful conflict with both Local Plan Policy
CP29 and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well Designed Places’ of the National Planning
Policy Framework 2021.
11. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans is needed for certainty and is in the interests of proper planning.
A condition requiring the Council’s prior approval for external materials will
safeguard visual amenity as it will enable officers to ensure that the roof tiles
match those of the dwelling and that the appearance of the wall is appropriate
for its prominent position.
12. A condition requiring the protection and retention of the existing vegetation on
the site is needed to ‘soften’ the combined effect of the wall, paving and garage
Appeal Decision APP/M1710/D/23/3314772
3
in this rural setting, notwithstanding my assessment that they are acceptable in
this location. A condition restricting the garage for parking and domestic
storage is needed for amenity and the provision of on-site parking.
Martin Andrews
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions
1) The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later
than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this
Decision;
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance
with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 502; 500A; 503A;
501B;
3) Details and samples of the external materials for the proposed garage
and wall shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details;
4) The existing hedging/trees /planting as indicated on the approved site
plan shall be protected during the construction of the works hereby
approved. If any of these trees, hedging or plants die or become
seriously damaged or diseased either during the construction period or
within 5 years of the first use of the completed garage, they shall be
replaced as soon as reasonably practicable with others of the same type,
size and number unless alternatives are first agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority;
5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-
enacting or modifying that Order) the garage hereby approved shall only
be used for the purpose of parking private motor vehicles and for
ancillary domestic storage in connection with the residential use of the
property.
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 15 March 2023
by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 14 April 2023
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/D/23/3314772
57 Chalton Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville PO8 0PP
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mrs E Bryson for a full award of costs against East
Hampshire District Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a new
detached garage and front wall.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be
awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused
the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the
appeal process.
3. For the appellant it is argued that Council made no individual assessment of
the appeal scheme on its merits and instead relied on the generalised guidance
in the Residential Extensions and Householder SPD.
4. However, I consider that the SPD is particularly relevant in this case given
there is specific advice on the siting of garages and outbuildings in relation to
the front of a dwelling, albeit including the possibility of an exception being
permissible where it can be justified. The general principle of whether such
development should be permitted must therefore carry substantial weight in
the appeal.
5. Moreover, the officer’s report is divided into sections and the appeal scheme is
assessed under the headings of 2. ‘Impact on the amenity of neighbouring
properties’; 3. ‘Design and impact on the character of the area’, and 4.
‘Highway Implications’. Under Section 3 there are the sub-headings of ‘The
garage’ and ‘The front boundary wall and railings’.
6. Having re-read these sections with the costs claim in mind, I am entirely
satisfied that the specifics of the application are properly addressed, with
confirmation also given that a site visit had first been carried out. Accordingly,
the main assertion of the costs application is without merit.
_____________________________________________________________
Costs Decision APP/M1710/D/23/3314772
2
7. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been
demonstrated and the application for an award of costs is refused.
Martin Andrews
INSPECTOR
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.