Appeal 3369110

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 main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the location of the site in the Cannock Chase National Landscape.

The site lies within the Cannock Chase National Landscape (NL). Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 places a duty upon me to seek to further the statutory purpose of the NLs, which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty. The key characteristics of the NL include elevated heaths, wood pasture, pastoral and arable farmland, forests and historic parklands which offer a haven of tranquillity in marked contrast to the more urban and fragmented landscapes that surround it.

Within the NL there are various settlements including [site address] where the appeal site is situated, which is a less formal settlement featuring houses scattered along a triangular road pattern consisting of a mix of ages and architectural styles set in spacious plots and setback from the highway creating a pleasant character and appearance to the area.

The appeal dwelling is a detached bungalow set within a generous garden to the front and rear. The appeal site is surrounded by other detached dwellings which maintain a largely regular front building line which contributes to the spaciousness and harmonious character of the NL within the settlement.

The proposed carport would be situated in the front garden of the appeal site and would occupy a large portion of the space through virtue of both its depth and width. The Cannock Chase AONB Design Guide (2020) provides guidance for outbuildings and garages stating that they should be in keeping with the character of the main building and be sensitive to the aesthetic of the streetscape.

Despite the 3.5 metre separation between the building and the footway with a mature boundary hedge, the proposed carport would be in front of the strong building line on this side of [address] and be clad in timber which would result in a highly prominent incongruous feature.

Whilst the carport would be subservient in height to the main dwelling, and the roof would be clad in appropriate tiles, it would still be highly visible due to its height as it would sit above the hedge boundary treatment. This along with its land take would exacerbate its prominence when viewed from the adjacent footpath and the highway.

Overall that the proposal would represent a highly visible addition which would disrupt the existing pattern and rhythm of the area. As such, the proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape, a matter to which I attribute great weight.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the location of the site in the Cannock Chase National Landscape. It would not accord with Cannock Chase Local Plan (2014) Policies CP3 and CP14 which requires, amongst other things, development to be well related to their surroundings. It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, where it seeks to ensure development is visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout and is sympathetic to local character.

Similarly, it would conflict with The Cannock Chase AONB Design Guide (2020) which provides guidance for outbuildings and garages stating that they should be in keeping with the character of the main building and be sensitive to the aesthetic of the streetscape.

The appellant refers to nearby developments argued to set a precedent for the proposal. However, there are significant differences between these developments and the proposal before me, including the design, scale, prevailing building line and surrounding context. Ultimately, I have considered the proposal on its own merits and against the planning policies and guidance in force, in particular that of the Framework.

The proposal would not affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, nor would it have a detrimental effect on highway safety, drainage or floor risk. Nevertheless, this would be expected of any well-designed proposal and neither weighs in favour of or against it.

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.