Appeal 3358220

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The proposal is described as retrospective, and it was evident at the time of the site visit that the development had been completed.

I note there is a discrepancy between the original description of the development as shown on the planning application form and that used by the Council on the decision notice. I have taken the description of the development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice, as it provides a more concise description of the proposal, which I note the appellant has also adopted with the Grounds of Appeal.

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

[site address] occupies a semi-rural location characterised by an eclectic mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The dwellings are set back from the road with low boundary walls, low hedging or open front gardens and driveways to the front of the properties. The appeal dwelling is a detached two storey dwellinghouse situated in a prominent position on a corner plot. It has two separate vehicular accesses onto the driveway from [site address] and [name] with a low brick boundary wall on the frontage.

The carport occupies a position significantly forward of the established curved building line on this part of [site address] . Even allowing for the setback of the appeal property in comparison with the neighbouring properties at ‘Willowbank’ and ‘Ashbourne’, the structure appears as a prominent and incongruous form of development in the area, and where there are no directly comparable examples.

Despite the comparatively open form of the carport and the use of a shallow pitch roof, it adversely relates to the appearance of the host dwelling and is not sympathetic to the character or appearance of the locality. [name] have had regard to the existing low brick wall boundary along the road frontage and low fence at the shared boundary with the neighbouring dwelling at ‘Willowbank’, these fail to provide sufficient screening of the development to mitigate the visual harm. Furthermore, the prominent position to the front of the dwelling on the corner plot only succeeds in exacerbating the incongruity intrusiveness of the development in the streetscene.

I accept that a significant variety of type and size of vehicles could be parked on driveways within the street and that when in situ these contribute to the visual character and appearance of the area. However, the impact of these vehicles would be transitory given comings and goings, in comparison with the permanent impact of the carport.

The proposal harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area and therefore conflicts with Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan (2016) which seeks high design standards for new development that responds positively and sympathetically to their context.

I have carefully considered the personal circumstances in this case, but I am not persuaded that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the significant harm I have identified above. I am also mindful that circumstances and occupants can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. Following careful consideration of the matter, I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing the appeal is proportionate and justified.

The appellant has drawn attention to other brick-built garages constructed in front of properties further along the road. [name] observed these at the time of the site visit, it is clear that the specific circumstances are not directly comparable to the form and design of the appeal scheme and the specific characteristics of the appeal site. In any event, I have considered this appeal on its own merits and the site-specific circumstances.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.