New detached garage

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 August 2025 by J Somers BSocSci (Planning) MA (HEC) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009144 Briardale, Kempton Cross, Worlingham Suffolk NR34 7EQ • 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 Glyn Woolmer against the decision of East Suffolk Council. • The application reference is DC/26/0247/FUL. • The development proposed is described on the Application form as a ‘New detached garage.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding locality. Reasons 3. The appeal site is fronts Lowerstoft Road, one of the main roads leading into the settlement of Beccles. Many of the dwellings fronting Lowestoft Road are detached and comprise of single and two storey dwellings that have been constructed towards the mid-late twentieth century and contains a number of large plots and detached dwellings. Despite the differences in design, many of the dwellings contain similar setbacks with larger front gardens that are well vegetated with mature trees, with grass verges between the front boundary and the footpath with many dwellings having hedgerows to the front of plots which allows vegetation to dominate and gives a leafy and green townscape. There is an emphasis on spaciousness with undeveloped gaps in and around dwellings which also contribute to the experience and local distinctiveness of the locality. There are a handful of dwellings that have completely paved their front garden or have solid boundary treatments and buildings in the front garden, however these elements are not a dominant characteristic, but which do detract from the positive qualities that make up the character and appearance of the locality. 4. The appeal site contains elements which reflects some of the positive qualities that contribute to character and appearance of the locality, such as having a large undeveloped front garden area (albeit much is paved), with mature trees located along the boundary. The dwelling is set back well into the plot which emphasises the important undeveloped spaces in and around the dwelling. 5. In assessing new development, the Waveney Local Plan (LP) Policy WLP8.29 is a design-led policy that contains a number of considerations around high quality design such as demonstrating an understanding of local character and Appeal Decision: 6009144 2 distinctiveness, responding to the local context and form of surrounding buildings, particularly the relationship between buildings and spaces, amongst others. 6. The proposed garage would be very large in size at 6.2 metres x 6.2 metres x 4.2 metres tall and would be placed very close to the front boundary. Whilst I agree with the Appellant’s Statement of Case (SoC) that the garage would be seen in the context of the mature trees and vegetation and boundary treatment, it is not a modest building and this is why the development is problematic, given that it interferes with the undeveloped and open spaces which allow vegetation to dominate, rather than built form. I can also appreciate that vegetation could be introduced to screen and soften the development, however this would be difficult to enforce with future owners who may not wish to maintain the vegetation. 7. I note reference in the appeal documents with regards to a garage at Ashdale Drive1 located towards Lowerstoft Road to the opposite side of the road from the Appeal Site. The garage is actually to the side of the dwelling with it’s main frontage along Ashdale Drive, so is not appreciated within a similar context to the appeal site. Additionally other examples2 are also not part of the immediate character of the appeal site, and illustrate that applications are judged on their merits, in terms of garages in front gardens may be appropriate, but it depends on an assessment of their context and the character and appearance of the area. This is also the case in photos submitted within the appendix of other properties in the area. 8. That said and in conclusion of this matter, the proposed garage would dominate the front of the dwelling and detract from the positive qualities of the locality, causing harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to LP Policy WLP8.29 as described previously. Other Matters 9. I note reference within the Appellant’s statement around the issue of the need for security of the Appeal Site. Whilst I have not been presented with additional information in this respect to consider this as a material consideration, to me it would appear that there would be other ways in order to secure the property, and that the proposed garage is not essential for this purpose. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. J Somers INSPECTOR 1 The Appellant’s Appeal Statement refers to this property as 2 Ashdale Close, however on my site visit this site opposite the appeal site was called Ashdale Drive. 2 26, 98 and 100 Lowerstoft Road;