Appeal 3345330

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the decision notice and appeal form which accurately and succinctly describe the act of development.

The fact that development has been carried out is not in dispute. For the avoidance of doubt, this has had no bearing on this decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name] & The Glade Residential Area of Special Character.

The appeal site is within the [name] & The Glade Residential Area of Special Character (RASC). Of relevance to this appeal, its important features appear to include its spacious plots and well landscaped appearance. [address] is characterised by large detached dwellings in generous plots. Front gardens include soft landscaping and hardsurfacing for access and car parking, but are generally open. The separation between the road and built form makes a positive contribution to the pleasant sense of spaciousness.

My attention is drawn to the outbuilding permitted at Maplewood 1, although this does not appear to be located forward of the front building line. There are a limited number of outbuildings to the front of main dwellings nearby, including a garage to the front of Belanger2. However, such features are uncommon and do not form an important part of the character and appearance of this site. 1 19/00426/HHOLD, 12/02195/HHOLD 2 17/00233/HHOLD

[name] is a large house, mainly in brick and stone and includes a garage. It is set back from the road with mature trees in the front garden area as well as soft landscaping including planting to the front boundary. It makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the RASC in these respects.

The appeal scheme has introduced two open wooden structures with solid roofs into the front garden area to provide covered car parking. Each carport is large enough for two cars to be parked under cover. Hardstanding extends under each of the carports.

These multiple, double carports, along with the hardstanding, introduce a large amount of built form into the front garden area. Although they are open to the sides, they are nevertheless clearly apparent as built development. Furthermore, the materials and design do not reflect the main dwelling. This leads to an over dominance of built form within the plot, in a design which does not complement the appearance of [name], and a harmful erosion of the openness and soft landscaped character of the front garden area. This is harmful to the character of the RASC as set out above.

The structures are partially screened by existing landscaping, and this would increase as the planting on this site matures, and additional landscaping could be secured by condition. Nevertheless, they would remain visible in views from nearby properties and therefore this harm would be experienced.

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area including the RASC. As such, it would be contrary to policies DES1 and DES3 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (2019). Together these require high quality design and set criteria for residential development in RASCs. As well as to the advice in the RBBC Local Character & Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021) which provides further guidelines for development in RASCs, amongst other things.

The carports are required to protect cars and people from debris falling from trees. However, the property has an internal garage which could be used for this function. Therefore, any benefit in this regard would mainly be a private benefit and as such it is afforded limited weight. Consequently, this would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of this area which is designated for its important character.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.