Appeal 3321983

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area, with particular regards to the design, location and materials.

The appeal property is located on the periphery of a modern housing estate. It is set within a corner plot, set forward of the building line created by its immediate neighbours and benefits from a greater separation between plots than nearby development by virtue of its double garage. The estate is characterised predominantly by two storey semi-detached and detached residential dwellings, with canopies over the front doors, varying in design.

The porch would be set centrally within the front elevation and would result in a large forward projection. It would differ significantly from the treatment of the front of nearby properties because of its scale, height and enclosed design, and would result in an incongruent and unduly prominent feature to the front elevation of the host property.

Furthermore, whilst I acknowledge that there are differences in terms of brick pattern and materials between the appeal property and its immediate neighbours and that oak would weather; these differences do not persuade me that the host property is markedly different to warrant the use of alternative materials to those found upon it. As such I consider the materials fail to respond positively to the local context.

I conclude that the porch would cause harm to the character and appearance of both the host property and wider area, contrary to the design principles of Policy DC1 of the Darlington Local Plan 2016-2036 which seeks, amongst other matters for development to respond positively to the local context in terms of scale, form, height and materials. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks, amongst other matters for development to be sympathetic to local character.

Whilst it is submitted that examples of this type of structure are found within Darlington on similar house types, no examples have been provided. Furthermore, the presence of examples elsewhere does not provide justification for harmful development.

With regards to the appellant’s claim that the porch would allow for enhanced views across the neighbouring open space which could act as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour, I have not been presented with substantive evidence regarding any existing anti-social behaviour. I note the suggestion that the porch would assist with the energy efficiency of the building, but this has not been substantiated. These matters carry limited weight and do not alter those conclusions that I have reached.

For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.