Appeal 3300621

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site has a bungalow and a reasonably sized garden and is sited on the outer side of a bend in [address]. The locality is of relatively uniform appearance with primarily detached bungalows, facing the road and usually with open plan front gardens albeit some fencing and planting is evident. The area is of established residential character and pleasing appearance. The appeal proposal is to erect a flat roofed car port to one side of the front garden area; construction would include metal posts and a polycarbonate roof.

Even with a flat roof and single-car dimensions the carport would represent a significant and visually alien structure to the front of the host property, a dwelling which is in a prominent location. A key attractive characteristic of this locality is the fact that, virtually without exception, front gardens have no appreciable development within them. This contributes positively to the streetscene. At a close-up level the structure would also look ill at ease in relation to the appeal property itself through uncharacteristic design, materials, angles and lack of integration. In all senses the scheme would appear adversely ‘random’.

[name] do appreciate the wish to protect a car, regrettably, in summary, the siting and form of the proposal would run contrary to the character of the area and would be unacceptably visually detrimental.

Policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan (LP) is relevant. Amongst other matters, it seeks to ensure that development is well designed and reflects or improves the character of the local area having regard to siting, layout and its other aspects. An aim to achieve good design and appropriate development is also found within Aldwick Parish Design Statement (APDS), which refers to protection of open plan localities, and the [name] (ADG), that calls for frontage parking to be handled sensitively and protectively of the streetscene. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with LP Policy D DM1, the APDS and ADG.

I have considered the carport example drawn to my attention in [address], Pagham. However, I do not know the planning background to this; location, design and siting are different; I am not persuaded that this should be used a benchmark for good design; and in any event, I must assess the present case on its own merits. I can see that attempts have been made by the Appellant to rationalise the angle relative to the side boundary and to minimise the scale of the structure and I note the point about matching colouring. I also note that neighbours have not raised objection but I must have regard to the overall picture of the streetscene. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above.

I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policy and documents which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.