Appeal 6001390

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.

I have taken the description of development from the planning application form albeit, I have removed the words ‘see copies of two photographs of the carport’ for the purposes of the banner heading as they are not a description of development.

It was clear from the appeal site visit, that the development proposed has already been constructed. Therefore, the appeal has been considered on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively.

The main issues are the effect of the development on:

The character and appearance of the area; and

The living conditions of occupiers of 18 and [address] (Nos 18 and 20), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached bungalow positioned on a pronounced incline on a suburban cul-de-sac. The surrounding area predominately comprises semi-detached and terraced dwellings which display similar modest, simple architecture. Many properties in the vicinity benefit from off-street parking, usually located to the front or side of dwellings. Garages and carports however are not a common feature of the area. Where present, these limited examples maintain a notably subordinate relationship with the host dwelling, giving them a discreet presence in the street scene.

Although the Appellant contends that carports are common in suburban areas, each case must be assessed on its own merits having particular regard to location and design. In this case the carport extends to the full depth of the bungalow and projects significantly beyond the building, almost to the front boundary of the plot. While it sits below the ridge line of the bungalow, it has an unduly dominant appearance, that lacks subservience and is disproportionate when compared to the modest scale of its host. Furthermore, the carport’s roof form is uncharacteristic and at odds with the simple gable of the host bungalow and neighbouring properties. Overall, and regardless of whether timber might be a common material for garden structures, the carport fails in both scale and form to appear as a subordinate and ancillary structure.

At my site visit I noted the railings and gates enclosing the plot and the shed positioned beneath the structure. However, the carport’s height, width and substantial forward projection, reinforce its intrusive appearance and read as an alien addition in a street otherwise characterised by open frontages and modest domestic additions.

Consequently, the development has a serious harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy 10 of the [name] – Part 1 Local Plan (2014) (LP1) which, amongst other things, requires all new development to be designed to make a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place, and to reinforce valued local characteristics. It also conflicts with Policy DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document – Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (LP2) which in general terms seek to ensure that developments respect and enhance the street scene, local environment, townscape and character of the area.

The neighbouring properties at Nos 18 and 20 sit substantially lower than the appeal site and, due to the existing retaining wall, the boundary fence above it, and the sheds positioned along the side of the bungalow, result in a level of enclosure along this boundary. Together, these features form a tall and continuous edge when experienced from the rear windows and gardens of these neighbouring properties.

In this context, and as a result of its scale and close proximity to the shared boundary with Nos 18 and 20, the carport adds a further layer of built form along the length of this boundary. Its additional height compounds the enclosure created by the existing features and increases the perceived mass of development at an elevated level relative to the neighbouring plots.

The dark, cross-pitched roof further accentuates its prominence. Even allowing for its open-sided construction and the backdrop of the existing bungalow, the presence of the carport results in a visually intrusive and overbearing feature when experienced from Nos 18 and 20, which dominates the outlook of neighbouring occupiers, to the detriment of their living conditions.

For these reasons, the development has an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 18 and 20, with particular regard to outlook. It therefore conflicts with Policy 10 of the LP1 and Policy DE1 of the LP2 with particular reference to ensuring that a satisfactory level of amenity is provided for occupiers of neighbouring properties.

I acknowledge that the carport was erected to reduce the risk of slips and falls in poor weather and to deter crime. However, I am unconvinced that these objectives could not be achieved through a scheme that avoids harm to the character and appearance of the area and to neighbouring living conditions.

The effects on trees, ecology, parking and highways are not disputed by the Council. Based on the evidence before me and what I saw on site, I have no reason to disagree. However, the absence of harm is a neutral matter and does not weigh in favour of the scheme. The fact that the site is not within a conservation area also does not justify a development that is harmful.

The construction of a carport may bring very modest social, economic and environmental benefits. Even so, these are limited in scale and do not justify the harm identified. While the appellant suggests that there is local support for the development, no representations to that effect are before me. In any event, public support does not justify the harm identified in this instance, particularly given local objections have been made.

Reference is made to a carport at [address]. I do not have the full planning history of that development. In any event, from what I observed, it is materially different in terms of its location, scale and design than the scheme before me.

The appellant indicates a willingness to accept planning conditions to make the development acceptable. However, as the carport is in situ, conditions could not address the fundamental concerns regarding its siting, scale and discordant design.

The development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, 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.