Appeal 3329726

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of this appeal, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) has been published (December 2023). I am satisfied that Paragraph 135 of the current Framework duplicates Paragraph 130 of the July 2021 version, which is referred to within the Council’s reason for refusal. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

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

The appellant’s home occupies a prominent corner plot close to the entrance to Milbourne Park. Whilst a number of dwellings in this residential area have enclosed their front gardens, the site remains largely open plan in character. The side elevation of the appellant’s property faces the primary route through this residential area and is set back from the highway.

The carport projects forward of the side elevation of the appellant’s dwelling and abuts the adjacent footway. I note that a good part of the appellant’s front and side garden remains open, nonetheless, the carport unacceptably intrudes into the space between the property and the highway. This gives rise to an overly prominent and cluttered appearance. As such, the structure fails to respect the development pattern and open plan character of Milbourne Park.

The carport is a flat roof design and includes low quality materials. I note that the wood reflects some boundary treatments in the area, that the plastic sheeting roof has been chosen to allow light into the structure and that the car port is no higher than the existing garage. However, these basic materials fail to respond to the stone finish of the appellant’s home and the overall character of the street scene. This basic design and materials, along with the large footprint and prominent position of the carport, give rise to an overly dominant structure. It appears incongruous and at odds with the character and appearance of the main dwelling and area.

I acknowledge that the carport is required to safely accommodate classic cars and also that the appellant considers that the existing garage is not suitable for the storage of a vehicle. However, these matters do not outweigh the unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and area which I have identified. As such, I offer them limited weight in support of allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the carport unduly harms the character and appearance of the appeal site and street scene. It therefore fails to meet the requirements of Core Policy 57 criterion iii of the [name] (2015) and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023) which, taken together, require a high standard of design which respects local character.

I note that the appellant offers to remove some of the wood panels from the side elevation of the structure, to improve visibility splays when exiting the site. However, highways matters do not form part of the reason for refusal and this amendment would not address the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the site and streetscene.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.