Appeal 3329437

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for the erection of a single storey car port at [site address] , Kidderminster, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 23/0388/HOU, dated 31 May 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 plan referenced 22BR/1, dated May 2023.

The materials to be used in the construction of the car port hereby approved shall be as detailed in the application.

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

The appeal dwelling is a detached, two-storey property which is set back from [address]. The dwelling has a generous front curtilage located behind a roadside boundary comprising brick wall and hedgerow.

The adjacent dwelling, No [address] (No 24), is a two-storey property which is sited forward of the appeal dwelling. As such, its flank elevation partially encloses the front curtilage of the appeal dwelling. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, generally comprising two storey dwellings of mixed age, form and design. The mixed character and age of buildings results in a varied building line on both sides of [address]. A number of properties have single-storey front projections of varying design and depths. The mix and variety of buildings contributes positively to the overall character and appearance of the street.

The proposed car port would be sited to the front of the dwelling, positioned adjacent to the boundary with No 24 and the flank elevation of that property. The building would have a pyramid roof design and its overall height would be modest, set below the eaves height of the host dwelling and that of No 24. While sited forward of the host dwelling, it would only project forward of No 24 by a small amount. Consequently, the building would be set back a similar distance from [address] as No 24 is, and other dwellings further to the east.

When approached from the east the majority of built form would be positioned behind No 24, while its roof would slope away from the street, reducing its prominence. As such, the building would be relatively discrete and unobtrusive when viewed from this direction. From the west, the building would be largely screened by the substantial vegetation to the front of No [address], while the lower-level boundary to the front of the appeal dwelling would also afford the building a degree of screening. In any event, the building would be set against the built backdrop of No 24, rather than appearing as a significant protrusion beyond the established building line.

The front garden of the site is generous. The proposed car port would occupy modest area of the front garden with sufficient land remaining for hard and soft landscaping. Therefore, the building would not dominate the site frontage or result in an overdevelopment of the plot. Furthermore, the modest scale and discrete siting is such that it would appear subservient to both the host dwelling and No 24.

I acknowledge that there are no similar structures within the immediate streetscene. Nonetheless, the streetscene is varied in character and style, and also includes single storey front projections. Some of which are sited much closer to [address] than the appeal proposals would be. [name] have identified above, the building would be modest in scale, and would be appropriately sited within its plot to not result in a prominent or intrusive addition in the street. It is also noted that the dwelling benefits from an existing garage, and the Council questions the need for the proposed structure. There are no policies before me which indicate that the need for householder development should be demonstrated. In any event, I have considered the effect of the proposal on its individual merits, which I consider to be acceptable.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposed development would accord with [name].20, DM.24, and DM.25 of the Wyre Forest District Council Local Plan 2016-2036 (2022); the Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2015); and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, amongst other things, these seek to achieve high quality design in new developments.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by Blakedown and Churchill Parish Council with regard to the effect of the development on the character of the streetscene, and also the effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring property with particular regard to outlook. [name] have concluded above, I consider that the effect on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable.

With regard to living conditions, the Council raised some concerns with regard to views from a first-floor window at No 24. However, they did not identify sufficient grounds to refuse the scheme on these grounds. Given the scale, siting and design of the building, and its relationship to windows in the adjacent dwelling, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on this matter.

I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development, and to require compliance with the submitted plans for certainty. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the materials detailed is also necessary in the interest of the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons the appeal is allowed.