Appeal 3300078

The appeal is dismissed.

An unnumbered plan without a scale showing visual perspectives of a new cart shed or cart lodge was submitted with the Council’s questionnaire but this drawing did not appear in the list of plans (drawing nos 01/01 and 01/02) submitted with the application. The hipped roof shown on the visual perspectives is wholly different to the pitched roof depicted on those 2 main scaled plans which a builder would need to follow for construction purposes. For these reasons, I have disregarded the visual perspectives drawing.

The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposed cart lodge upon the character and appearance of the area and upon the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at [address] with particular regard to the potential for overbearing and overshadowing impacts.

The appeal property is a sizeable, detached two-storey house. It is set well back from the western side of [address] which is part of a relatively busy B-road which progresses north-south through the settlement of Poringland.

The large, wide front garden, where the cart lodge would be erected, has an open appearance and is mainly given over to various types of hard surfacing. The new single-storey cart lodge would be 6.85 m wide by 6.32 m deep and provide 2 covered vehicle parking spaces. It would have a fairly tall pitched roof which would overhang all sides of the building.

I did not observe any other detached garages, cart lodges or outbuildings in the front gardens of any of the neighbouring properties in the vicinity of the appeal site. Although many of the other properties do have garages, these tend to be integral garages or ones that are set back from or to the side of their respective dwellings. I have no details about the planning history of the detached garage in the front garden of no. 19A, shown in one of the appellant’s photographs. It appears to be of some age, stands directly behind thick and tall roadside hedging and is a notable distance away from the appeal site on the opposite side of the road. It has little relevance to the development proposed in the subject appeal which I have assessed on its own merits.

There are hedges and shrubs to some of the plot boundaries nearby and groups of tall trees can be found at no. 20 some distance to the north and in front of no. 34 to the south. In some views this vegetation, when in full leaf, would go some way to screening the proposed cart lodge. However, given its location well in advance of the host dwelling and its height and size and the generous width of the open front garden, the new cart lodge would still be readily apparent in views from both sides of [address], especially on the approach to the site from the south. Even with a building design that is not unattractive, existing vegetation retained and additional planting being undertaken, it would stand out as a prominent, dominant and somewhat isolated building in this section of the road.

I consider that the proposed cart lodge would be a visually incongruous addition to the front garden and the street scene by failing to have regard to the wider setting of the buildings hereabouts and by detracting from the spacious quality at the front of this dwelling, which makes a positive contribution to the distinctive character of this particular locality.

I find on the first main issue that the proposed cart lodge would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would run contrary to the aims of [name] 3.4 and DM 3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (LP) and Policy 14 of the Poringland Neighbourhood Plan, particularly where they seek to ensure that new development will protect or enhance the local character, appearance and context and will be of high quality design.

The proposed cart lodge would lie to the east and south-east of the house at no. 30 which has a similar building line to no. 32. It would be sufficiently close to this neighbouring property to be of concern. By virtue of the orientation some degree of overshadowing of the front garden and the nearest wide ground floor front window at no. 30 would occur in the mornings, especially during those times of the year when the sun is lower in the sky. Its roof would be clearly visible in views from this neighbouring habitable room window above the hedge growing along the common boundary. In my view, it would curtail the outlook from that window to an unreasonable extent and appear overbearing. Landscaping of equal or greater height could be planted in the same position but such natural features rarely have impacts that are comparable to a permanent and physical new building.

I find on the second main issue that the proposed cart lodge would cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at [address] with particular regard to the potential for overbearing 2 and overshadowing impacts. This would be contrary to LP Policy DM 3.13 which explains that planning permission will be refused where proposed development would lead to an excessive or unreasonable impact on existing neighbouring occupants.

There is conflict with the development plan. Good design is also a cornerstone of the National Planning Policy Framework. This would not be achieved. The harm cannot be mitigated by the imposition of conditions and it is not outweighed by other considerations, including the acceptable arrangements for private amenity space, parking and access. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised and the absence of objections from the Parish Council, the Highway Authority and local residents, I conclude that this appeal should not succeed.