Appeal 3321817

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a carport at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00768/FUL, dated 14 March 2023, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2056.A.06.1 [name] and Elevation, 2056.A.06.3 [name] and 2056.A.06.5 Location Plan.

The materials to be used in the construction of the carport hereby permitted shall accord with the approved plans and the details set out on the application form.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

The appeal property is a modern distinctive stone-built dwelling, forming part of a small row of large, varied, detached properties that occupy generous plots set back from the wide road, contributing to the spacious character of the area. The wider street scene is mixed in terms of the design and siting of buildings, notably No. 69 and 70 [site address] as well as properties to the south of the appeal site which are all located in closer proximity to the roadside, contributing further to the varied character and appearance of the area.

Tthe host property and its adjacent neighbours have garages positioned forward of the main dwellings, which disrupts the common building line of the main dwellings in this small row. The garage of the appeal property is sited in line with the garage of the neighbouring property to the southeast. The neighbouring property to the west also has a prominent detached garage located close to the roadside boundary and would be set further forward to the road than the proposed timber framed carport.

The proposed carport would adjoin the existing garage, set slightly back, and would feature a matching roof pitch. Although it would bring the built form closer to the road, it would be constructed on an area of existing vehicular hardstanding, maintaining a setback from the stone wall boundary with the existing grassed area retained.

The open frontage of the carport, use of matching roof materials and lower ridgeline compared to the host dwelling and garage ensures that the proposal remains subordinate in nature and of a suitable scale relative to the host property. Additionally, the timber boarding on the side and rear of the carport would be left untreated, allowing it to naturally weather over time and it’s appearance thus would recess further in the streetscene.

Therefore, considering the scale, siting, materials and the surrounding context of other built form close to the road, I find that the proposal would not appear incongruous nor unduly prominent in relation to either the area or host dwelling.

For the reasons above, I consider that the proposed carport would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Consequently, there would be no conflict with [name].9 and CS.20 of the Stratford and [name] 2011-2031 (2016) which, amongst other things seeks a high standard of design which respects the local context and is of an appropriate scale to the existing dwelling.

The proposal would be sited within the setting of five listed buildings. I am required to pay special attention and have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings under Section 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act (1990).

The Grade II listed [name] is located to the southeast of the appeal site, separated by the neighbouring dwelling and landscaping which obscures the proposal from view. The four other listed buildings are two pairs of little altered estate cottages located on the opposite side of the road away from the appeal site. The Council has not raised any concern with the effect of the proposed carport on these heritage assets. Based on the evidence before me and the observations I made during my site visit, due to the subservient scale and separation distances from the appeal site to the listed buildings, I find the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of the listed buildings and therefore does not alter my findings on the main issue.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. A condition requiring the external materials to match those specified in the approved drawings and application form is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is allowed.