Appeal 6001788

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • whether the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 [name], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property forms a detached two storey dwelling within a residential cul-de-sac of dwellings predominantly of similar plot sizes and proportions. Plots are generally spacious with a broadly consistent set back of dwellings from the highway, albeit given the informal arrangement of properties which follow the shape of the highway, building lines are not well defined. Front gardens form a mixture of grass and hardstanding with frequent trees and hedgerows. This gives the surrounding area a relatively open and sub-urban character.

When compared to other residential plots along [name], the appeal site has an uncharacteristically large front garden. This is mostly formed of hardstanding bounded partly by hedgerows and trees. As with other residential plots within the cul-de-sac, the front garden is void of built form.

The proposal seeks to introduce a car port to the front of the dwelling. Given the curvature of the highway the car port would hold a prominent position in the street scene. The rear of the building would have a modest eaves height, such that the rear wall would be largely screened by the existing boundary hedge. The materials proposed would assimilate with the wider street scene.

However, the hedge would not screen the overall height and bulk of the building. Given the proposed orientation of the building, the full width would be experienced when travelling through the cul-de-sac in either direction. The projection in front of the front building line of both the appeal property and neighbouring properties would be significant. Despite the support offered by some interested parties, I find that the proposal would be a visually dominating form of development within the street scene which would disrupt the open character of the surrounding area.

My attention has been drawn to an existing garage at 1 [name], which I understand was allowed at appeal. I observed this garage during my site visit. Notably, it is attached to the side of the dwelling and is therefore not directly comparable to the proposal before me, which relates to a detached outbuilding to the front of the dwelling.

Based on the above, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy EN1 of the [name] and Development Management Plan (2015) (the Local Plan), which amongst other matters, seeks for the layout of proposed developments to respect the character of the site and the surrounding area. It would also be contrary to the advice within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on residential extensions (2009) which specifically states that garages and other outbuildings should not generally be located in front of the building line.

Policy EN2 of the Local Plan requires proposals to safeguard the amenities of nearby properties, including in respect to visual intrusions. The proposed car port would be close to the shared boundary with 4 [name] (No 4). As above, the boundary is formed by hedgerow which would offer some screening of the building.

The occupiers of No 4 would have visibility of the proposal from the nearest windows. As requested by the Council, I took the opportunity to view the appeal site from inside the neighbouring property. I noted that the closest ground floor window is the sole window to the habitable room which it serves.

Given the low eaves height at the rear of the building, and the offset from the shared boundary, the maximum pitch height and overall bulk of the building would be some distance from the windows at No 4. Whilst the building would create a more prominent form of enclosure when compared to the existing boundary hedgerow, the outlook in other directions for the occupiers of No 4 would remain relatively open.

Although visible in oblique views, the building would not be so dominating or visually intrusive to amount to a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4. I therefore find that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 [name], with particular regard to outlook. On this basis, I have identified no direct conflict with Policy EN2 of the Local Plan.

The Council’s officer report suggests that the proposal was also recommended for refusal based on the proposal failing to provide sufficient internal space to accommodate two vehicles. However, this is not referenced on the formal decision notice. I note that elsewhere in the report there is an acknowledgment that there would remain sufficient hardstanding space for vehicles to park even if they were to overhang the footprint of the building. Given the open nature of the building, I have identified no specific harm relating to the parking implications of the proposal.

It is presented that the building would allow for the covered parking of vehicles which would reduce the need for cleaning and protect the batteries of electric cars. Whilst these represent environmental benefits, in acknowledgement of the scale of the proposal, the benefits associated would be extremely minor and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area which I have identified above.

The appellant has provided details of a planning approval for a dwelling elsewhere in the District, presenting that it represents a new dwelling in front of an established building line. I do not know the full circumstances of this decision but in any case, an application for a new dwelling is not directly comparable to an appeal proposal for an outbuilding.

[name] have found that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the appeal is dismissed.