Appeal 3338080

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a detached pre-war bungalow in a private road with originally broadly similar properties running down both sides. A number of the homes have been extended over the years, including in the roof, some more aesthetically successful than others. The dwellings all have a modest front garden space and the building line of the main front elevations is virtually consistent. The locality is of established residential character and pleasing appearance.

The proposed flat-roofed garage in matching materials would be to the front of the home, tight to one side, and measure about 2.8m in width, 6.1m in depth and 2.3m in height.

Even with a flat roof and single-car dimensions the garage would represent a significant and visually alien structure to the front of the host property’s building line, a dwelling which is in a run of consistently sized open front gardens. A key attractive characteristic of this locality is the fact that, virtually without exception, front gardens have no appreciable development within them. This contributes positively to the streetscene. At a close-up level the structure would also look ill at ease in relation to the appeal property itself through uncharacteristic design, overly tight siting and a lack of architectural integration. In all senses the scheme would appear adversely ‘random’ and ill-at-ease in the scene.

Regrettably, in summary, the siting and form of the proposal would run contrary to the character of the area and would be unacceptably visually detrimental.

Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan and Policy D1 of the Broadclyst Neighbourhood Plan are relevant. Taken together, and amongst other matters, they seek to ensure new development is of high-quality design reflecting local distinctiveness and relating well to context and urban form in terms of street scenes, local character, development spacing and suitability of siting. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal scheme would conflict with these policies.

I do understand the Appellant’s wish for increased off-road parking in this tight setting and for greater vehicle security with an unlit road, as well as the frustration arising from the narrow passageway. I can see that thought has been given to materials and that there would not be undue impact upon neighbouring residential amenity, not least due to a helpful level change. I recognise that the Parish Council supported the scheme. I have considered the development examples drawn to my attention but found none to be directly comparable in terms of location, siting or design and, in any event, I must determine this case on its own merits. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above.

I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Councils’ policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.