Appeal 3351453

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence submitted with the appeal decision along with my observations on site indicate that the development appears to have been partly completed. Whilst the development that has taken place appears to be representative of the plans, the appeal is determined on the basis of the plans submitted rather than what is currently on site.

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

The appeal development is located in front of the host property at Number [site address] . The area in the immediate vicinity of the development is principally characterised by two-storey detached dwellings, with relatively open front gardens. The front gardens have an open character with a mixture of post and rail fences with some boundary hedges.

Several nearby dwellings in near the appeal development have ‘L shaped’ footprints which include integrated garages. However, there are no examples of dwellings with separate buildings or structures in front of the host properties in this part of [address]. The siting of the development in front of the host dwelling results in a significantly prominent and intrusive feature in the street scene detracting from the generally open character of the front gardens.

Views along the highway are not fully open due to the siting of other properties further along [address] closer to the road than Number 9. Nonetheless, the car port results in a significant structure sited closer to the highway than the properties in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, due to the development’s scale, it would significantly erode the sense of spaciousness of the frontages of the dwellings in this part of the street. The development has a tiled hipped roof and would be partly clad with timber which would add to the sense of scale and bulk of the development. I find the extent of roof plane visible within the street scene combined with the substantial bulk of the car port would result in a highly incongruous feature that would harm the appearance of the area.

The appellant has indicated that the development is needed due to existing garage space being occupied by other hobby vehicles. The appellant has also indicated a willingness to accept a planning condition which would retain the car port without the external cladding. However, whilst a condition could reduce some of the bulky appearance of the car port, the significant scale of the development and extent of views of the existing roof-plane would still result in a significantly bulky and alien feature in the street scene. Therefore, I find these factors would be insufficient to mitigate the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

In light of the above, I conclude that the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS06 of the [site address] and [name] (2011), Policies DM2 and DM15 of the [site address] and West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016) and Policy 5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan which collectively seek to maintain local character, respond sensitively to the local setting and pattern of streets and be sympathetic to neighbouring properties in terms of size and general design features.

The proposal would also fail to accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure developments are sympathetic to local character.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.