Appeal 3296538

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to retain the existing carport, cantilevered canopy and gabled roof construction and the conversion of the existing patio area to create a secure store/garaging facility at [site address] , [site address] , Leatherhead [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/P/01695, dated 28 July 2021, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing carport.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; Block Plan; [name]; [name]; [name]; [name].

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

Part of the development has already been carried out. From my observations this appears to reflect the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

[site address] is a main road running through [site address] . Most of the houses are detached and set back from the road on large plots. Boundary treatments consist mainly of hedges, shrubs and trees, and there are regular mature trees lining the street. This creates a verdant and open character.

The houses on [site address] and the surrounding area vary in scale, form, and style. However, it is common for garages to be positioned in front of the host dwellings. There are several houses in the surrounding area, including along [site address] , with garages of a similar scale and position to the appeal property’s carport.

Although positioned in front of the appeal property, the carport is set relatively far back from the road. The set back and front boundary planting mean views of the house and carport from the street are fairly limited and their appearance softened. Notwithstanding this, and despite some of the walls of the existing carport being enclosed, the integral garage door, which forms part of the front elevation of the house, is visible from the road because the western elevation of the carport is open.

Given the moderate scale of the carport and its set back, it is not prominent in the street scene, and appears as a subservient addition to the existing dwelling. Its gable roof design reflects the roof of the existing dwelling and is in character with houses and garages in the surrounding area.

The cantilevered canopy consists of a simple thin frame and transparent covering, which maintains a sense of separation between the house and the carport. Furthermore, it is not clearly visible from the street, and the views of the integral garage door through the western elevation of the carport give the appearance that the house and carport are two separate structures.

The proposed addition to the carport to form a secure store/garaging facility is modest and would not increase the scale of the structure to such a degree that it would become dominant or overbearing. It would remain subservient to the main house. Given that the eastern elevation of the proposed store would be finished in timber cladding, the resulting appearance would be very similar to the existing carport.

Accordingly, for the reasons above, I find the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area. As such it would be in accordance with the aims of policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2015-2034, Policy G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003, and Policy EH-H7 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 that seek to deliver good design and protect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal site is next to Forest Farmhouse, a [name] listed building. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to give special regard to preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Forest Farmhouse is located in a residential area and the houses on [site address] form part of its setting, as well as the area’s verdant and open character. It is set forward of the neighbouring properties, much closer to the road, which makes it prominent in the street scene with the neighbouring properties and planting providing a backdrop. It is the open and verdant setting that is significant in relation to this appeal.

The appeal property and Forest Farmhouse are separated by a relatively tall landscape boundary. This, together with the set back of the appeal property and its carport, maintains the open and verdant character of the area. Given this, and the modest scale of the proposal, I conclude that there would be no harm to the setting of the listed building or its significance as a designated

I can understand that development being undertaken prior to it being permitted may cause frustration. However, while this can be a material consideration, I have concluded the proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area.

Concerns have been raised that the proposal would allow the expansion of the appellants picture framing business that is operated from the appeal property and that this would result in an increase in noise and traffic. However, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the proposal for a domestic extension.

I understand that the outlook from the neighbouring property, Kennan, may have changed as a result of development. However, as stated in the Officer’s report, the walls of concern already benefit from planning permission and are not subject of this appeal. The Council have concluded that the alteration from the approved hipped roof to a gable ended roof would not result in any material effect on the residential amenity of the neighbour. I have no reason to depart from these conclusions.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a plans condition is required in the interest of certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition is necessary to clarify the external materials used in the construction of the store/garaging facility to match the existing carport.

With regard to the above, I find that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan, read as a whole. It has not been demonstrated that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it.