Appeal 3360165

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retrospective application for car port at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/01160/F, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with those shown on the approved plans and in the application form.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2000 PL001 Rev.A; 2000 PL020 Rev.A; 2000 PL023 Rev.A; 2000 PL030 Rev.B.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and comprises a two storey semi-detached property with a large frontage that is largely used for parking. The surrounding area comprises similar two storey semis with most set back a similar distance from the road as the host, and their frontages also used for parking with a mixture of planting, hedgerows and boundary walls/fencing of varying heights. A number of these properties, including the host property, have been extended and altered. There is also no uniform character, with properties varying in terms of their style, roof forms, detailing and pallet of materials. The appeal proposal involves the construction of an open sided wood framed car port, with a shallow pitched roof. At the time of my site visit, the car port was in place other than the roof tiles and thus permission is sought retrospectively to retain and complete the car port.

Due to the height of boundary fence between the host and [address] the proposed car port is well screened when approaching from the east. All that is visible is the eaves, low pitched roof and front gable to the car port. Whilst the car port is more visible from in front of the host, those views are of an open sided timber framed structure with a low pitched roof. In addition, those views are limited to neighbours or vehicles turning around in the cul-de-sac. The footprint of the car port is also small and combined with the above it appears as a sympathetic addition to the frontage of the appeal site. It does not hide any of the design detailing of the host and provides an attractive feature to the large area of paviours that forms the parking area to the host.

The car port does not extend significantly beyond the front elevation to the host and as the frontage is wide and deep this area is more than capable of accommodating the car port. Overall, the car port sits comfortably on the site frontage and does not have any harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal will not, as the Council allege, be incongruous or out of keeping with local character. [name] accept that there are no similar structures in the road, I am not convinced that this would on its own be sufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission. Even so, each application should be considered in its individual merits and that is the approach I have adopted here.

The Council have referred to policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan (PLP) which requires new development to be of a good standard of design and for extensions to respect and relate to the existing building, and to maintain or enhance details that contribute positively to local character. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the car port complies with the aims and objectives of this policy.

The Appellant indicates that the car port would assist their role as respite carers in that it would provide sheltered access for children and young adults, who have special educational needs and disabilities, when they arrive at the host property during respite periods from their main home. These factors add further weight to my findings.

Accordingly, I find that the appeal proposal complies with policy PP27 of the PLP.

Having regard to the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, the conditions suggested by the Council are all standard, and necessary and reasonable to secure a high quality finish to the development. I have, however, amended the wording of the materials condition to reflect those shown on the approved plans and listed in the application form.

For the reasons given above and having taken all other matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.