Appeal 3360193

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises a modern two-storey dwelling with attached garage forming part of a small, linear residential development accessed from [address]. The properties are in an elevated position from the road and the appeal site is the end dwelling. Properties along [address] vary in age, style, materials and positioning relative to the road, but the majority are set back with outbuildings positioned to the side.

The site is located within the character area of [site address] , [name] and Botley (HEWEB 29) identified in the Character Area Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This identifies [address] as being heavily trafficked and states new development should mitigate the effects of the heavy traffic by using measures such as boundary planting and setbacks and the materials proposed should complement/be similar to the existing development.

The proposal is for a double carport located forward of the main dwelling at the front corner of the appeal site. The carport would be enclosed on three sides with a gable facing the road. The location of the development would make it unduly prominent in the street scene and this does not comply with the SPD which requires new development to be setback from the road. The hedging on the site boundary is insufficient to provide adequate screening to either soften the appearance of the development or mitigate its visual impact in the street scene. Although there is a tree located outside the site that would provide some natural screening, this would only be in the summer months when the tree is in leaf. The materials proposed would be complementary to the existing dwelling but the gable roof design would add bulk and mass to the carport, exacerbating its prominence.

In conclusion, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy DM1 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things that new development does not have an unacceptable impact on and where possible enhances the character and appearance of urban areas.

In support of the appeal, my attention was drawn to other examples of outbuildings positioned forward of the dwelling on [address]. The detached outbuildings identified at 151 and [address] are garages located forward of the host dwellings with pitched and hipped roofs sloping away from the street which minimises the bulk and mass of the developments. The outbuilding at No 80 is also set behind substantial screening. I do not know the full details of the circumstances that led to planning permission being granted for these outbuildings and so cannot be sure that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal and in any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

The appellant also provides examples of attached double garages forward of the main dwelling with barn hipped roofs, but as they are attached to the dwelling with different roof forms, they are not comparable to the appeal proposal. The other examples of outbuildings provided form part of a different character area against which they would have been assessed.

I acknowledge the appellants concerns over the Council’s handling of the application, particularly with regard to working proactively with the applicants. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal.

I note the lack of objections to the proposed development, but this is neutral in the consideration of the appeal and the absence of objection does not equate to the lack of harm.

The appellants submitted a revised set of plans with their appeal Statement of Case offering a reduced ridge line and hipped roof and suggested additional planting. However, I am mindful that the appeals process should not be used to evolve a scheme to overcome the Local Planning Authority’s reasons for refusal and instead a fresh planning application should usually be made.1

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.