Appeal 6004341

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the rural location.

The appeal site forms part of a collection of varying buildings of differing forms and designs. The appellant suggests that the locality displays a transitional character at the edge of [site address] . However, the location of the appeal site is beyond the urban settlement of [site address] and forms part of a small settlement that is surrounded by countryside.

The proposal would create a large structure of considerable height forward of the existing front building line of [name] and in a visually prominent location within the site. It would be substantially larger than the existing shipping containers that are in situ, which are largely screened from public views by the existing boundary hedge. Furthermore, the ridge of the outbuilding would be above the eaves of the host dwelling. As such, the proposal would not represent a subservient outbuilding by reason of its overall size and height even if its construction materials would match that of the host dwelling. The existing hedge around the boundary of the site would to some extent screen the lower part of the proposed outbuilding. Nonetheless, given the overall size and height of the proposal it would be clearly visible in public views above the hedge.

Further to the above, the forward siting of the outbuilding, along with its siting north of the host dwelling within an open part of the site, would amplify the large appearance of the outbuilding when viewed from the public highway. In southerly views it would appear as an encroachment into the openness of the area, more so than the existing shipping containers. Despite the locality not being a nationally designated or a sensitive landscape the domestic character and appearance of the outbuilding would detract from the appearance of the rural area within which the existing host property is set. Whilst the proposal may bring about a benefit by consolidating structures at the site into a single purpose-built garage improving visual cohesion, this does not justify the proposed development or overcome the harm that I have identified above.

I acknowledge that the existing shipping containers are of a functional commercial appearance and are not conventional structures in this rural location and may be considered to be unattractive in appearance in their own right. Whilst their removal may be welcomed, they are of smaller scale and are less visually prominent than that of the proposed development. Their existence at the location does not make an unacceptable development acceptable or justify the proposed development.

There is a willingness to put in place additional planting by way of retention and reinforcement of the exiting boundary hedge and additional planting around the garage with this being potentially secured by way of a suitably worded landscaping planning condition. However, the vegetation would need to be of some height to screen such a large building. This in itself could give rise to other planning considerations relating to visual appropriateness. As such, it would not be appropriate to rely on the imposition of a landscaping planning condition as there is no substantively clear indication that such a condition could ameliorate the objections sufficiently to allow permission to be granted. Even if acceptable landscaping could be put in place it could be removed or die. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to rely on vegetation to make an unacceptable development acceptable.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the rural location. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4 and LPRHOU11 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021-2038, the Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to prevent significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the area, be unobtrusively located, not adversely impact upon the openness of the countryside and outbuildings should not visually compete with the main house.

I acknowledge the intention to enhance biodiversity at the site by providing additional planting and integrating bird and bat boxes within the structure, and that this would comply with national and development plan policy. Nonetheless, I have found that the proposal would fail to comply with the above policies, which are relevant to the consideration of this proposal.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.