Case Reference: 3364105

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 June 2025 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc
Decision by Kenneth Stone BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8th August 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/C1625/D/25/3364105
Annfield, London Road, Stroud, Gloucestershire GL5 2AT
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of Stroud District Council.
• The application reference is S.25/0167/HHOLD.
• The development proposed was originally described as ‘demolition of an existing single storey
garage circa 1950’s considered to be contemporary to the original house and the construction of an
enlarged garage with boy’s games room / future home office above’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Procedure
2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose
recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before
deciding the appeal.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the area.
Reasons for the Recommendation
4. The appeal site features a detached dwelling situated in an established residential
area. The dwelling is two-storey and features a main gable roof and a single-storey
extension with a partly mono-pitched roof. The dwellings in the area generally
feature spacious rear gardens which are mostly open and free of any substantial
structures. Where there are outbuildings, these tend to be small garages and sheds
which are clearly subservient to the host dwellings. The open nature of the rear
gardens and the subservience of structures therein, as is the case at the appeal
site, contributes positively to the spacious character and appearance of the area.
5. I acknowledge that the footprint of the proposed garage would be smaller than that
of the existing dwelling and the plot. Furthermore, in my view, the catslide dormer
windows and a stepped access would not be harmful in the context of the existing
dwelling which already has an extension which deviates from the form of the main
dwelling. However, due to the substantial height and bulk of the garage, it would
have a dominant and conspicuous presence in the rear garden area. It would be
out of keeping with the prevailing nature of outbuildings that presently exist which
do not introduce such large structures in the context of height and bulk. Even
accounting for its siting within the sloped bank and the trees in the vicinity, it would
nevertheless appear unacceptably tall and bulky. The proposal would therefore be
an incongruous feature which would erode the open and spacious character and
appearance of the area.
6. The evidence before me indicates that the proposal was submitted following refusal
of a planning application for a similar development at the appeal site1. I understand
that the appeal proposal was amended in light of the Council’s concerns on the
previous application. While I do not know the full circumstances of the previous
application, the particular changes to the roof orientation, eaves height, design and
materials choices would not be sufficient to assimilate the proposal within its
setting, given its unacceptable height and bulk.
7. While I was unable to view the garage at Silver Birch on my site visit, I did observe
those at Moreton House and Park View. These are however different as they are
sited to the front of their respective dwellings, and they are also single storey. In
addition, although the plans have been provided, I have not had the benefit of a site
visit for the various planning decisions referred to by the appellant. Consequently, I
cannot be sure if the circumstances of those decisions are directly relatable to the
appeal proposal. In any case, I have assessed the appeal on its own individual
merits and in its site-specific circumstances. Therefore, the examples provided do
not justify the harm of the proposal.
8. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and
appearance of the area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy HC8 of the
Stroud District Local Plan (2015), which requires that the height, scale, form and
design of outbuildings is in keeping with the scale and character of the original
dwelling and the site’s wider setting and location.
Other Matters
9. I recognise that the proposal is sought in relation to the needs of the household,
including to store tools securely in a workshop and to provide a children’s playroom
in the short term and a home office in the long term. I also note the appellant’s
professional experience in terms of building and conservation. However, these
matters do not alter my findings on the appeal overall.
10. The Council’s Officer Report states that the proposal would likely have an impact
on outlook in relation to neighbouring properties but concludes that due to the land
levels of the site and the separation distance and screening between the
properties, it is not considered that the proposal would have any detrimental impact
with regards to overshadowing or overbearing. These matters did not therefore
form a reason for refusal from the Council. I note some neighbours have also
raised such concerns, however on the basis of the information before me I agree
with the Council that such impacts would not result in significant harm. Whether or
not that would be the case, this would not affect the outcome of the appeal overall
since I have found that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the
area.
Conclusion and Recommendation
11. For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development
plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
1 Application reference S.24/1660/HHOLD
T Morris
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on
that basis the appeal is dismissed.
Kenneth Stone
INSPECTOR