Appeal 3314229

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a detached bungalow on a corner plot fronting [address] with a side return to [address]. It lies in part of a large residential estate with some two storey and chalet style homes but where bungalows predominate and open plan frontages are the norm. The scene is one of established character and pleasing settled appearance. The proposal is for a garage building to the north of the dwelling; it would be about 3.6m in width, 6.3m long and 2.5m high with flat green roof. A hedgerow has been recently planted to the back edge of the footway and this is to be supplemented by a new 1.5m high timber panel fence.

I mention above that the locality is mainly open plan. The property on the opposing corner of the relevant junction would, at first glance, appear to be contrary to this as it does have a very substantial hedge, with a set back garage, running along [address]. However, that is rather the exception and that dwelling addresses [address] and has its open plan element fronting that street. I am therefore not convinced that this one-off home, on the other corner from the appeal site, should reasonably be the benchmark for the appeal site.

In my opinion it should be the immediate run of bungalows down [address] which ought to be cited. This stretch is very clearly an open plan one. The proposed siting of the garage would be at an angle to the host dwelling with about half of the garage building forward of the front build line. Its adjacent grass verge would have the timber close board fencing and hedging as noted above and this in its own right would be uncomfortable visually and run contrary to the general scene. The garage protrusion forward of the front build line, set at an awkward angle to the dwelling would look most strangely positioned. It would be jarring to the eye and simply look out of place.

Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan is relevant. Amongst other matters, it calls for development to be of good quality design, suitable form and siting given context, and respecting local character and site surroundings. I conclude that the scheme would conflict with this policy.

I sympathise with the Appellant’s wish to improve and add further parking at this property. I can see that thought has been given to matters such as the green roof and new on-site landscape but regrettably, whilst I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant, they do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above.

The National Planning Policy Framework has been considered and the development plan policy which I cite mirrors 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.