Appeal 3331667

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appellant states that the Council has not acted in a positive and productive manner based on seeking solutions to problems. This is a matter between the appellant and the Council.

The appeal property is a single storey detached dwelling. It is set well back from [address] behind a tall wall and fence, which itself is separated from the pavement and road by a grass verge.

There is a substantial garden area between the dwelling and the appeal property’s front boundary. This contains a single storey detached garage, set back from the entrance to the appeal property. At the time of my visit, this front area also contained various materials and paraphernalia and to some degree, had the appearance of a builder’s yard.

The appeal property is located in a residential area. Houses are largely two stories in height and include a range of dwelling types, including detached, semi-detached and terraced houses.

The presence of grass verges on both sides of the road, extending southwards from the appeal site, together with the presence of public open space, front gardens and occasional street trees, provides for a pleasantly green environment. Further, during my site visit, I observed that the setting back of dwellings behind gardens and the presence of parking areas, grass verges and pavements results in a notably open and spacious character and lends a predominantly uncluttered quality to the area’s appearance.

Beyond the appeal site to the north, a terraced row of two storey cottages steps forward, much closer to the road and separated from it by only a pavement, low stone wall and narrow front gardens. These cottages, the “[address] Cottages,” are non-designated heritage assets, notable for their stone and slate materials and traditional form.

During my site visit, I noted that the wide and spacious character of [address] to the south provides for some distant views of the [address] Cottages. The appeal property is set back from these cottages and the proposed development would not interfere to any significant degree with these distant views of the cottages due in part to the presence of trees in a neighbouring garden. 10.Whilst the appeal property has a garage in front of the dwelling, this is set back from the property’s gated entrance and front boundary wall and does not appear unduly intrusive in a street scene notable for its sense of spaciousness and for the general absence of buildings to the front of dwellings. A recent planning permission1 allows for this garage to increase in size, but it would still remain stepped well back from the site’s front boundary. 11.The proposed development would comprise a large, tall double car port. It would be located immediately adjacent to the appeal property’s front boundary wall. Due to its height and overall dimensions, the proposal would rise above the property’s boundary wall and fence adjacent to the grass verge and pavement. In so doing, I find that it would loom above the boundary wall and draw attention to itself as a prominent and incongruous feature within a green and spacious corridor notable for its general absence of buildings. 12.The harm arising by way of incongruity would be exacerbated by the appearance of the proposal. During my site visit, I noted that along this part of [address] there are no timber structures with tall, pitched roofs situated in prominent locations similar to the development proposed. Consequently, the proposal would appear out of keeping with its surroundings. 13.In addition to the above, I am also mindful that the proposal would be situated close to an existing garage, which itself has permission to be extended. I find that together, the proposed development and the existing garage (enlarged or not) would result in an unduly cluttered appearance, in contrast to the wider area’s uncluttered and spacious qualities. 14.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019) Policies DM1 and DM12; to Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2013) Policies CS2 and CS20; 1 Reference: 22/0020/HH. 2 and to Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan (2021) Policy FV6, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The appellant, in support of the proposal, draws attention to an existing car port nearby. However, this is set well back from the street and shares little in the way of circumstances with the proposal. It does not provide for direct comparison. Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm and this is not something that is mitigated by the presence of another development elsewhere.