Garage/workshop building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 September 2025 by Hannah Guest BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 October 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000443 16 Arosa Drive, Malvern, Worcestershire WR14 3JP • 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 T Turner against the decision of Malvern Hills District Council. • The application Ref is M/25/00677/HP. • The development proposed is garage/workshop building. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for garage/workshop building at 16 Arosa Drive, Malvern, Worcestershire WR14 3JP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref M/25/00677/HP, 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: FM107-XX-XX-DR-D-0001 P2 Drainage Strategy; 01 Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations. 3) Prior to development above slab level details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, the details set out in the submitted Drainage - Water Management Statement within the Planning Statement (inc. Water Management Statement), for erection of proposed double garage/outbuilding at 16 Arosa Drive, Malvern, WR14 3JP for Mr Turner, dated April 2025 shall be fully implemented and remain thereafter. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is located at the closed end of a short cul-de-sac of 10 bungalows. The bungalows are similar in their appearance. They have a simple, pitched roof form and are finished predominately in red brick. Appeal Decision 6000443 2 4. The bungalows are set back from the highway a similar distance and have open frontages comprising a mixture of hardstanding for parking, lawn, shrubs, bushes and small trees. There are no outbuildings positioned forward of the principal elevations of the bungalows. Existing garages are located at the rear of the bungalows and accessed via driveways running along the side of the dwellings. 5. The appeal property, as one of the bungalows positioned at the end of the cul-de- sac, benefits from some additional frontage bounding the turning head. This section of frontage is currently laid with gravel to provide a parking area. Behind this space is a conifer hedge separating Arosa Drive from a public footpath. On the other side of the footpath is the flank elevation of a recently constructed two-storey house that is part of a larger development. While the conifer hedge visually separates this house from Arosa Drive, its flank elevation is very close and positioned directly at the end of the cul-de-sac, making it a prominent feature in the street scene. 6. The proposed garage/workshop would be located on the additional frontage bounding the turning head, adjacent to the flank elevation of the new house, which in views along Arosa Drive would provide a backdrop. Although relatively large for an outbuilding, it would have a simple form and would be significantly shorter than the flank elevation of the new house, which would maintain its prominence at the end of the cul-de-sac. 7. Given this, despite the proposed garage/bungalow being positioned forward of the principal elevation of the appeal property and not corresponding with the linear arrangement of the bungalows, in terms of its size and positioning, it would not appear incongruous or detract from the street scene. It would be set away from the front of the appeal property with sufficient space between the two to ensure that it would not dominate the front of the property. For these reasons it would accord with the advice set out at paragraph 8.3.28 of the South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, Overarching Design Principles (2018). 8. Notwithstanding this, I am of a similar view to the Council that the proposed rough rendered finish would not compliment the brick finish of the bungalows. This finish would also make the proposed garage/workshop more prominent in the street scene, as it would stand out against the backdrop of the flank elevation of the new house, which is also finished in red brick. Nevertheless, the appellant is willing to secure the external materials by condition. In this case, a red brick finish would ensure the proposed garage/bungalow was inconspicuous and in keeping with the appearance of the surrounding dwellings. 9. Accordingly, for the reasons above, the proposal would accord with Policies SWDP 21 and SWDP 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) and Policies MD1 and MD2 of the Made Malvern Town Neighbourhood Plan (2019). These policies seek to ensure that all development is of a high-quality inclusive design that integrates effectively and fully with its surroundings and reflects the local character, including the character of the landscape setting. Conditions 10. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the plans that are approved and that the development shall be undertaken in accordance with them is required in the interests of certainty. Appeal Decision 6000443 3 11. To protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition requiring details of the external materials to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority is necessary. 12. To be certain that the development does not increase flood risk on or off the site, a condition is required to ensure that the development includes an adequate and appropriate sustainable drainage system. Conclusion 13. I have found that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with the development plan read as a whole. The appeal is therefore allowed, subject to the conditions set out above. Hannah Guest INSPECTOR