Proposed development is to erect a garage / store

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 April 2026 by N Perrins MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005661 37 Clayford Avenue, Ferndown, Dorset BH22 9PQ • 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 Dale Abley against the decision of Dorset Council. • The application Ref is P/HOU/2025/07528. • The proposed development is to erect a garage / store. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description of development as described on the Council’s decision notice as this more accurately describes the appeal proposal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow with front garden and driveway with access onto Clayford Avenue. The proposal is to erect a single storey garage / store building with a pitched roof in the front garden, forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling. 5. As observed on my site inspection there is a well-established and consistent pattern of development along Clayford Avenue, where detached single storey bungalows and two-storey dwellings are set back from the road behind open front gardens defined by low boundary walls, fencing and hedging; the appeal site follows this established pattern. Open driveways and front garden areas are, therefore, a defining feature of the street, contributing to a sense of openness and maintaining the established building line. I observed no outbuildings of similar scale to the appeal proposal being positioned forward of the principal elevation of any of the dwellings on Clayford Avenue. 6. The proposed garage would be positioned to the front of the bungalow, forward of the principal elevation. Its eaves height would be broadly similar to the dwelling, and its northeast elevation that would face the road presents as a blank-faced Appeal Decision 6005661 2 structure. As such, the proposed building would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. Taken together, its bulk, mass, and position forward of the building line would appear as an overly prominent addition that would detract from and markedly disrupt the prevailing open-frontage character of the street. Furthermore, the position of the garage forward of the principal elevation would not be in keeping with the building line to the immediate south. 7. I acknowledge the appeal site has a more generous front garden than some properties along the road. However, this aspect of the site does not justify the harm that would occur from the building incongruously projecting forward of the established building line. The spaciousness of the front garden is itself part of the positive contribution that No. 37 makes to the open street scene character, which the appeal proposal would denude by placing a structure that would prominently diminish the space that exists, rather than preserving that contribution. 8. Whilst the appellant highlights that assessment from two-dimensional plans differs from the reality of how a proposal might appear when built, my conclusions are not based solely on the submitted plans. I carried out a site inspection and have taken account of the three-dimensional reality of the proposal in its context, including its relationship to the boundary treatment and the wider street scene. 9. I also acknowledge the appellant's contention that the proposed building could be screened by an existing dwarf wall and planting to include a new 2-metre hedge similar to that in place at a property nearby on the same side of the road. Whilst a mature hedge might reduce the visibility of the lower elements of the garage, the roof form would remain visible above any boundary planting, and the fundamental concern about the building's uncharacteristic position forward of the building line would remain regardless of screening. 10. I further note that the appellant indicates that a flat roof design could have been considered but the decision was taken to mirror the prevailing roof form of the area. As a flat roof alternative proposal is not before me to consider, it has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Notwithstanding this, the harm identified arises principally from the scale, siting and position of the building forward of the building line rather than its roof form. 11. Finally, I have carefully considered the appellant’s argument that the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy adopted 2014 (CS) is at the very end of its useful life, and that limited weight should now be given to it, relying instead on the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I do not accept this submission. The CS was adopted in 2014 and was designed to cover the period to 2028. The CS has not been superseded, and there is no evidence before me that the most relevant policy to this appeal, HE2, is out of date in a manner that would engage the tilted balance as set out in Paragraph 11 of the Framework to the determination of this appeal. 12. Moreover, Policy HE2 of the CS sets out the design criteria for new development that remain consistent with the design sections of the Framework. Whilst Policy HE2 does not expressly prohibit ancillary buildings forward of the building line, its criteria relating to bulk, height, scale and visual impact fall to be applied to the specific circumstances of the proposal, and for the reasons set out above I find the proposal fails to meet those criteria. Appeal Decision 6005661 3 13. To conclude, the proposed garage would introduce an overly dominant structure forward of the established building line in a street scene characterised by open frontages, set-back dwellings, and no existing precedent for outbuildings forward of principal elevations. The proposal would, therefore, be an incongruous and visually discordant addition to Clayford Avenue contrary to Policy HE2 of the development plan and the design objectives of Paragraph 135 of the Framework, both of which require development to be sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 14. Whilst no concerns arise regarding overlooking, loss of privacy, or harm to heritage assets, the absence of harm in these respects does not weigh in favour of the proposal or offset the harm to character and appearance identified above. 15. I also note that the position and eaves height of the proposed building, which is broadly similar to that of the host dwelling, may reduce natural light to the front windows of the property. However, as I have found there to be unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, I do not need to consider this matter further in this appeal. 16. I also note that no objections were received from any party, including the Parish Council. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal, as I am still required to objectively determine whether any harm exists to the character of the area sufficient to withhold planning permission, as I have done in this decision. 17. Finally, I acknowledge the appellant’s contention that they have little choice as to siting. However, I give this limited weight in this decision as absence of an alternative location does not make an otherwise harmful development acceptable. Conclusion 18. For the reasons stated, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. N Perrins INSPECTOR