Proposed single storey extension to garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 October 2023 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 October 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3425/D/23/3325660 Brockton View, Slindon Road, Slindon, Stafford ST21 6LX • 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 S Fox against the decision of Stafford Borough Council. • The application Ref 23/37124/HOU, dated 15 February 2023, was refused by notice dated 15 May 2023. • The development proposed is described as ‘Proposed single storey extension to garage’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to garage at Brockton View, Slindon Road, Slindon, Stafford ST21 6LX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/37124/HOU, dated 15 February 2023, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 03 Proposals plans; 04 Proposals elevations; and 05 Site location plan block plan. 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. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development given in my formal decision omits a word from the description provided on the planning application form and which is set out in the banner heading above. The omitted word, ‘proposed’, does not describe an act of development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site lies within the village of Slindon. It contains a detached double garage and storeroom which is sited forward of the front elevation of a modern dwelling, Brockton View. The existing garage is set behind a low brick front boundary wall that is separated from the carriageway of the adjoining highway by a wide grass verge containing a footpath. On one side of the appeal site is a dwelling with a detached garage that projects forward of the front elevation of that property. To the other side is St Chad’s Church which is set back from the Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/D/23/3325660 2 road behind a low stone wall and fence, within an open graveyard. Mature trees, shrubs and hedges are located along the highway, including along the frontage of the Church and the adjoining property. 5. Slindon comprises a loose and sporadic ribbon of development, primarily in residential use, along the highway. Whilst the appeal building and the garage next door are a broadly similar distance from the highway, there is not a consistent building line within the village as several single and two storey buildings directly abut, or lie very close to, the public highway. 6. The proposal would add to the bulk and massing of the existing garage, would fill the gap between it and the front boundary wall, and would sit forward of the garage of the adjoining property. Accordingly, there would be an increase in its prominence. Nonetheless, the canopies of trees along the highway, would soften the presence and effect of the proposed extension in views upon approach in both directions, and would ensure that it would not appear intrusive or overly dominant in the street scene. The single storey height and limited footprint of the extension, and the narrowness of the elevation facing the road would also ensure that the front of the dwelling would not be dominated by the extended garage. Moreover, whilst it would project forward of the adjoining garage, due to the small scale of the extension and absence of a consistent building line, it would not create a visual imbalance that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 7. Therefore, the development would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such it would accord with Policy N1 of the Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 which seeks to achieve development that is of high design standards, has regard to the local context and preserves and enhances the character of the area. In addition, it would accord with the design principles set out in the Design Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework set out at paragraph 130. Conditions 8. In addition to the standard condition which limits the lifespan of the planning permission I have specified the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition relating to matching materials is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the new development would be satisfactory. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR