Appeal 6003299

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 1.5 metre deep front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/02296/FUL subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with plans – Site Location Plan & as built front porch drawings [site address] , Grangetown, Sunderland [postcode] .

There are variations to the description of the proposal between the application form, the appeal form and the Council decision notice. That included in the banner heading above is a simplification of the original description and omits wording that is not a form of development.

I was able to note on my site visit that a porch was in place on the property which broadly accorded with the plan before me.

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

The appeal site is located within a row of terraced dwellings. The properties within the street are generally single storey in form although some include front dormer windows to provide accommodation at first floor level.

Most properties incorporate bay windows of various designs with their built form set back to varying degrees from the pavement behind small front yards which provides relief within the street scene and which is a positive unifying characteristic within the street. Whilst some properties incorporate lightweight porch canopies, porches themselves are not a common feature on the street.

The porch that has been built, although allowing space to either side between the pavement to provide courtyard areas extends directly up to the edge of the pavement. Bay windows this far forward are not an existing feature within the street and the porch as built has resulted in an erosion of this positive characteristic of the street. The porch therefore has an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The porch subsequently conflicts with Policy BH1 of the [name] and Development Plan (2020) which amongst other things requires that to achieve high quality design and positive improvement, development should create places which have a clear character based upon a robust understanding of local context and distinctiveness and should be of a scale and layout which respects and enhances the positive qualities of the locality. There would be conflict with the development plan as a whole. In having an outward projection of 1.5m the porch would also contravene Council SPD guidance which advises that amongst other things proposals for front extensions should project no more than 1.2 metres from the front elevation of a property.

Set against this, the occupant of the dwelling has specific needs, such that the depth of the porch would be of a material benefit to them and this is supported in evidence from the occupants health professional. I afford this matter significant weight.

The evidence also indicates that a porch of similar width, but slightly lesser depth at 1.2m has recently been granted planning approval at the site. There appears a reasonable prospect that this proposal could be implemented. Given that a porch at 1.2m projection would only result in an area between the footway and the elevation of the porch of very limited depth, the visual effect of that porch when viewed within the street scene in terms of its projection would not be significantly different from the proposal before me. That matter should therefore be afforded weight in favour of the scheme.

Given the nature of the above matters, the potential for this scheme to be used as a precedent in support of similarly designed structures is reduced.

Only one condition requiring that the development be retained in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty is necessary.

The proposal causes some limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. Set against this are the needs of the occupier as well as a previous planning consent for a similar porch. This matter, combined with the benefits of the scheme lead me to conclude that the harm associated with the porch is outweighed. On that basis the appeal should be allowed and determined otherwise in accordance with the development plan.