Appeal 6001038

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit I saw that development had commenced, and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

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

The appeal site is a large parcel of land which contains a detached building which is currently in use as a care home. The appeal building is set back from the road by a large driveway. The wider area is predominantly residential with buildings being of a similar appearance, with other plots being generally large and set back from the road with large, open driveways and frontages which results in an open character and appearance.

The proposed development would introduce two structures in front of the appeal building which would stand out in the street scene, due to structures in front of buildings being uncommon within the wider area. Instead, the openness of the frontages of other properties is a notable characteristic of the area which would be eroded through the structures proposed.

The utility building is located very close to the frontage of the appeal building and blocks some of the windows on the ground floor. This draws further attention to the building and the closeness, combined with its overall size, detracts from the host building and results in an incongruous feature in the street scene.

The vegetation and fencing to the front of the appeal site would provide some screening of the proposed development, but this screening would be limited to immediate views from the road in front of the appeal site. The distinctively open frontages that are character of the wider area would allow long range views which would highlight the proposed development and result in dominant and incongruous features.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and host building. It would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP24 and DP1 of the Local Plan Planning for Change 2012-2031, Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance contained within the [name] Planning Document February 2008. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is integrated with the character of the landscape, reinforces character and identity, through local distinctiveness and is visually attractive.

The Council have alleged conflict with the Horninglow and Eton Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2031 Made 16th March 2015 (NP). However, no specific Policies have been identified and having reviewed the NP, the proposed development does not appear to conflict with any of these Policies.

The appellant has referred to other developments in an attempt to justify the proposed development. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to the dwellings on [address], some of the rear gardens for these properties back onto [address], next to the appeal site. However, this does not form a predominant part of the character and appearance of the area as it is limited to only a few houses next to the appeal site. In any case, the prominent view is that of the fences and it is clear that these enclose the rear gardens of these properties, and the outbuildings contained within these gardens therefore do not stand out in the street scene when compared to the proposed development.

I note that the proposed utility building and bin store were not included in an earlier application for the appeal site and they have since been identified as a requirement. However, this requirement does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and host building.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.