Appeal 6004021

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached double car port at [site address] , Abingdon, Oxfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/S2775/HH, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

For the purposes of the header above I have used the description of development from the application form. However, in my decision I have changed the description to the erection of a detached double car port, as it more accurately describes the development, following the submission of revised drawings during the application process.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the local area, having particular regard to the setting and the significance of the adjoining [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site sits on the southern side of the [site address] , at the central point of the village, much of which is included within the CA, and which contains several listed buildings. However, the CA’s boundary does not include the appeal property or the two adjacent properties to its east, within the boundary. The appeal site therefore sits outside of, but adjacent to the CA.

The CA derives its significance, insofar as it relates to this appeal, from [site address] ’s origins as a historic rural village adjacent to the [name]. Properties date from as early as the 13th century, though most date from the 15th century onwards, with timber frame construction under thatched roof a common form in older properties, whilst red brick walls under red-brown pitched tiled roofs predominates in the 18th century and later Victorian period properties.

The [site address] runs through the length of the village, with properties ranged in a linear pattern along its northern and southern sides. Properties follow a familiar palette of materials, but with great variation in their architectural detail, orientation and positioning relative to the road. There is a resultant variation in the boundary treatments, either ranging from open, planted garden frontages, high or low hedges, high brickwork or stone boundary walls and iron railings above low brick or stone boundary walls.

Properties to the northern side of the road have more of a tendency towards being closer to the road, which has a continuous public footpath running along it. The front boundaries to properties on the southern side of the road, tend to be set back from the road behind a wide grass verge, with variation in the set back from the rear of the verge to the principal elevation of individual properties. This wide verge and the variation in setback, results in a more open feel to the southern side of the road. The presence of established mature trees and hedges, such as those present to the east and west of the appeal property, lend a verdant, long established, rural character to the CA and the village.

The appeal property is a later property, constructed sometime in the 20th century, its triple gabled principal elevation being set back from the front boundary by around 12 metres. The boundary has a low level red-brick wall with shoulder height piers. Steel railings sit atop the wall and between the piers. A continuous, waist height, dense evergreen hedge is in front of the wall and railings. The frontage area between the front boundary wall and the property is fully paved, providing parking and turning areas for vehicles.

The proposal would introduce a single storey, open sided car port structure close to the front and eastern boundary of the site, in front of the principal elevation of the appeal property. The structure would be constructed from large section timber frames, with traditional braces to the structural bays of the proposed building. The roof would be a hipped gable format with catslide to one roof slope, reducing the effective eaves height of the building when viewed from the east. The roof would be clad in a red-brown clay tile.

Having examined the evidence and having viewed the site and the surrounding area at my site visit, I find that the scale of the proposal would not be out of keeping with that which would be expected for the appeal property’s size. The proposed car port building would follow an architectural scale and detail that would not be at odds with the surrounding architectural detail present within the area, its timber framed nature and detail, roof form and materials, reflecting much of the architecture within the village.

Whilst the proposal would introduce a structure in front of the existing property, this would not be out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area, the property immediately to its west, the [name], having a single storey solid walled barn structure in a similar relationship. Whilst the Council consider the car port’s siting would not follow the defined building line, I find that there is no consistent defined building line within the village. Much of the village’s character, and therefore that of the CA, comes from the variation in the scale and positioning of the principal road facing elevations and that of their subservient outbuildings, of the constituent properties to the [site address] , creating the visual interest and punctuation in development.

Due to the combination of the car port’s restricted height, its open-sided nature, and its hipped gable roof, I find this would retain the openness to the frontage of the existing property, whilst providing cover for parked vehicles.

Due to the presence of high mature hedges and trees, and proximity of outbuildings of other properties such as [name], close to the rear of the verge, the proposed car port would be significantly obscured in views west and east along the [site address] . Any views of the proposal would be read against the backdrop of the varied pattern of development in the village, and with a substantial amount of visual transparency resulting from its open sided nature.

Accordingly, I do not find that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, nor do I find that it would result in harm to the adjacent CA and the way in which it is experienced from the public realm. It would, therefore, preserve the setting of the CA and its overall significance.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would accord with Polices DES1, DES2, ENV6 and ENV8 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035, Policy LW6 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2035 and the advice set out within the [name] and Vale of [name] 2022, which require, among other things, development to have a high quality of design which responds to the value of, and which protects and conserves, the historic environment and designated heritage assets.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations that justify determining other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.