Garage Appeal Planning Statement

neighbours that is the basis of the concern. In terms of appearance the garage complies with the provisions of the PDO with the exception of the flat roof, which in itself does not render the building unattractive; it has been designed as a standard ancillary domestic building of a type that is not uncommon within residential areas. The position of the garage to the rear of the dwelling is also typical of such structures within residential areas; consideration was given to locating a single garage to the side of the dwelling but was discounted for two reasons. Firstly, this would not give the applicant the space that he requires to garage his vehicles and would reduce the amount of external off-street parking available in comparison to the current proposal. Secondly, in general planning terms it would reduce the space between dwellings thus affecting the sense of space within the street scene (particularly if others were to follow suit) and the position as now proposed avoids this issue.

5.3.4 It can be seen from the submitted drawings that the garage will be approximately 2.6 metres high, which is 0.8 m higher than the rear boundary fence of the appeal site. When the setback of approximately 1.5 metres from the boundary and the slightly lower ground of the garden are taken into account then the amount of garage visible above the fence when viewed from the adjacent garden to the rear will not be significant. When viewed from the garden to the south this will be reduced further by the higher fence, and from the north it will not be easily seen due to the distance from the boundary. Photographs of the appeal site and its surrounds are included at Appendix B.

5.4 The Land Drain Which Runs Through the Site

5.4.1 Concern has been expressed by third parties in respect of a land drain which runs through the appeal site adjacent to the rear boundary fence. This drain has been located and runs parallel to the fence approximately in the centre of the gap between the fence and the proposed garage. This gap will ensure that interference with the drain is avoided and will also allow access for maintenance of the building.

10

6.0 Summary and Conclusion

6.1 The garage as proposed is of a size and location that complies with the provisions of the Permitted Development Order. It has been designed with a flat roof in response to the concerns of neighbours, and as a result has an appearance that is neither unusual nor unattractive.

6.2 The area to the rear of no. 4 Erin Crescent and its neighbouring property is divided into individual gardens by timber fencing of varying heights and contains a number of garden sheds and other structures. The garage will be in an area of rear gardens that does not provide a principal outlook for any of the dwellings, but notwithstanding this fact the fencing along with the positioning of the garage will ensure that it will only be possible to see the extreme upper part of the garage from neighbouring property. As such it will neither block light to gardens or windows nor will it represent a significant visual intrusion as asserted by the Planning Committee.

6.3 A land drain runs parallel to the rear boundary of the appeal site and within the gap between the fence and the proposed garage. The drain will not be interfered with and the gap will also allow maintenance of the garage to take place.

6.5 The Inspector is therefore invited to recommend to the Minister that the appeal be successful and that planning approval be granted to the application.