Appeal 6004636

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a covered pergola at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 250563, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 00-01A (location plan and block plan); 02-01B (existing site plan); 02-02B (existing roof plan); 02-03B (existing elevations); 02-01 (proposed site plan); 02-02 (proposed roof plan); 02-03 (proposed elevations).

The materials to be used on the external elevations of the development hereby permitted shall accord with those set out on the application forms.

The application forms describe the development as having been commenced but not completed at the time of the application submission. Although both the Council and the Appellant have referred to a retrospective development, the development did not appear to be complete at the time of my site visit. Furthermore, and as noted at my site visit, the structure as built to date does not appear to comply in a number of points of detail with the submitted plans, including in terms of the roof and elevations. Given the above and as the proposed development was not complete at the time that the application was submitted, I am required to consider the scheme as a proposed development, based on the submitted plans as determined by the Council.

There has been a query over the name of the applicant and the appellant. I have used the name, [name], as set out on the application and appeal forms in the header above.

The description of development describes the purpose of the development and the materials. [name] have taken these matters into account in my assessment, it is only necessary to record the development in the header above.

The Council’s decision notice refers to the determined plans with a prefix 03, whereas the plans provided at the appeal stage start with the prefix 02. The Council has confirmed that these plans, with the prefix 02, were the plans determined at the application stage. I have differentiated them from the existing plans which have the same prefix number by including specific reference to which plans refer to existing and which to proposed.

Although the Council accepted and determined the application, it has raised an issue as to whether the development as built to date has been constructed on land within the ownership of the applicant and appellant. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and information provided to me. Land ownership matters would be required to be resolved separately under the relevant legislation.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the local area.

The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling on the south-west side of [address] within a predominantly residential area, with new built residential development to the west and north-west. Adjoining the western boundary of the property is a landscaped strip with some new planting, running between the rear of gardens to its east and west. There is pedestrian access to this landscaped strip from the south, but the landscape strip is closed off by a fence along [address].

The proposal would be for an attached covered pergola with an asymmetrical pitched roof with rooflights, at the rear of the garage which serves the property and running along the boundary of the rear garden adjoining the landscape strip. The roof would be in slates with high level glazing along the end elevation adjoining the rear garden of No [address]. The open side of the structure would face into the rear garden of the appeal property.

In terms of scale and massing, the pergola would be subordinate in form and proportions to the main dwelling. The materials would not match those used on the main house, but this would emphasise its form and nature as a proposed covered garden pergola. Given its modest scale and siting, it would not appear cramped or an overdevelopment of the rear garden or overall plot size. I consider that it would respect the character and appearance of the existing property.

The proposed pergola would be seen from neighbouring gardens and from a limited number of street scene views, including from within the adjoining landscaped strip. However, I am satisfied that, given its scale and proportions, it would not be visually intrusive but would be seen as an incidental structure to the existing property.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposal development would respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. There would be no conflict with Policy D10a of the [name] 2013, Policies UHT1 and UHT4 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003 and the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

Materials should accord with those set out on the application forms to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. The approved plans should be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be allowed.