Appeal 3276304

The appeal is dismissed.

The application and this appeal relate to the carport as constructed, i.e. with a duo-pitched roof as shown on drawing P103. A further drawing with a revised roof form, P103 [name], was submitted during the course of the application, but this was for discussion purposes only and the application was not formally amended. The revised plan is not therefore before me for consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal is to retain a large three-vehicle carport which has recently been constructed in the grounds of No [site address] , a substantial detached house set in an extensive plot. The open sided carport lies to one side of the entrance gate, facing towards the house, with its blank rear brick wall backing onto the front boundary fence and steep, red tiled duo-pitched roof running lengthways.

The car port thus runs for about 10 m just behind the front boundary fence, aligned at a slight angle, with eaves about 2.1 m high and the apex of the roof about 4.6 m. According to the submitted plan the carport is sited about 3 m from the fence at one end but less than 1 m away at the other, resulting in an unduly prominent appearance within the street scene. Whilst there are a group of tall spindly trees between the carport and the fence, these provide little effective screening and the lack of space would preclude the possibility of any significant further planting to screen the building.

The host property, an attractive early 20th century arts and crafts style red brick dwelling, lies within the [address] Special Character Area defined by the Peterborough Local Plan 2019 (PLP) which recognises its low-density nature with generally large dwellings set within spacious, well landscaped grounds. Policy LP20 aims to preserve the special character of this area by requiring new development to respect established properties and encouraging the siting of garages to the side of the houses rather than in front.

The appellant points out that the carport cannot be easily seen from the road until relatively close, also that No 17 nearby has a detached garage in a similar relationship to the road. However, the carport is visually over dominant at the southern end of Westwood Park Road when entering the character area from [address] and the garage at No 17 is smaller, has a pyramidal roof and importantly was permitted several years ago prior to the PLP. There are other prominent garages in the area, for example at Nos 20, 21 and 26, but none in such an intrusive position so close to the road.

For these reasons the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area in conflict with [name] LP16, LP19 and LP20. These require development proposals to positively contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area, to respect, enhance or reinforce that character and distinctiveness where appropriate, and to preserve the special character of the [address] area.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be dismissed.