Appeal 6003791

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.

During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared the same as that shown on the application plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought to retain the development that has been constructed.

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

The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached property set within a wider residential housing estate of other residential dwellings. The area possesses a varied architectural character with properties of various heights and designs. The area does however possess a pleasant consistency of open frontages which contributes positively to the areas character and appearance.

The carport is situated to the front of the appeal dwelling and occupies a large portion of the frontage through both its depth and width. Whilst the carport is subservient in height to the main dwelling this does not mitigate its level of visibility due to its siting in its prominent front garden location. Overall, the carport represents a highly visible addition which disrupts the existing pattern and rhythm of the area where carports in front gardens are not part of the area’s character.

I acknowledge the appellant stating that its open sides make the structure more visually permeable as well as their choice of timber and use of artificial shrubbery to match the surrounding boundary treatments. However, regardless of this the materials do not match those of the appeal dwelling that the structure directly relates to which increases its prominence. I also note the appellant’s reasoning that carports and pergolas are typical domestic structures and whilst this can be the case in certain settings there is nothing before me to demonstrate how this is the case for the surrounding area of the appeal site and in the absence of this precedent I do not consider carports to be a characteristic of the area. In any event even if this were the case as outlined above the carports materials, height and land take is harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

I therefore conclude that due to its overall footprint, design and massing, the development causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and host dwelling. Thus, conflicting with Policy QP4 of the Hartlepool Local Plan (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework. These both seeks amongst other things for development to be of an appropriate scale, design and appearance and respect the character of the surrounding area.

The appellant has outlined some benefits of the appeal proposal including but not limited to providing covered parking for their vehicle and allowing the appellant to stay dry whilst getting possessions out of their vehicle. However, these are personal benefits which do not outweigh the harm I have identified in regard to the

I note the appellant’s case that the carport could provide an additional means of escape in the event of a fire. I am not aware of an existing problem in terms of fire safety at the appeal site, or of any requirements that the development should be permitted for this reason. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that this could not be achieved by means that do not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s submission that there are no objections to the proposal. However, the absence of objections is a neutral factor in the balance and does not preclude a full and proper assessment of the planning merits of the case.

I have found that there would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, that outweigh this conflict.

For the reasons set out 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.