Appeal 3371839

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.

At the time of my site visit I saw that development had commenced and that walls had been erected on the site.

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

The appeal site is a two-storey semi-detached property fronting onto [address]. The area is mainly residential with other two storey residential properties adjoining the site; set back from the highway with modest gardens to the front. These gardens are generally free of built form which helps create a sense of openness to the street scene. There is a clear and consistent pattern of development which helps create a pleasant character and appearance.

Due to the siting of the outbuilding, forward of the clearly defined existing building line, when combined with its scale, this results in it being viewed as a highly visible, incongruous structure that harmfully protrudes into the street-scene when viewed from the highway and surrounding public realm.

I appreciate that the external materials would match the existing property. However, the footprint coupled with its significant height results in a bulky building that would extend considerably above the boundary wall. It would therefore be visually prominent within the street scene, appearing as inconsistent with the established pattern of development, eroding the existing open character and spaciousness of the front amenity areas.

The appellant has referenced the presence of a detached garage elsewhere in the local area. However, I have not been provided with full details of this scheme to understand the particular planning background and specific site circumstances that were present at the time it was approved. Consequently, I cannot be certain that this example is sufficiently similar to the appeal scheme, and I therefore give this limited weight. I have considered the proposal on its own individual planning merits. In addition, to my mind, the example which has been referred to serves to demonstrate the harm that can be caused through inappropriately sized and sited outbuildings. It does not justify allowing harmful development.

There are no objections to the proposed window, extension to garden building and boundary treatment and I see no reason to disagree with these conclusions. However, for the reasons set out above, the outbuilding would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DC1 of the Darlington Local Plan (2022) which amongst other things seeks for detailed design to respond positively to the local context in terms of its scale, form, height and layout.

It would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which has similar aims.

I acknowledge the appellant’s reason for siting the building to the front of the property, in order to retain outdoor space to the rear of the property for their children. However, such personal benefits seldom outweigh land use planning matters, and I give them limited weight in the appeal.

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.