Appeal 6004932

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon visual amenity, the character of the area and the street scene.

The appeal site is a detached residential dwelling located off [address] with off-street parking to the frontage of the site as well as benefitting from a garage to the front of (as a projection off) the host dwelling. The appeal seeks permission for retention of a caravan port which has been constructed to the front of the host dwelling, adjacent to the existing garage, and which has been constructed in grey timber with a flat roof at an overall height of in the region of three metres.

At the time of my site visit I noted that the area is characterised by garages which are forward of their host dwellings, however, whilst garages are a characteristic feature within the street scene, they are generally brick built with materials that are more closely associated to/resemble their respective dwellings as well as having pitched/hipped roofs. The flat roof, timber clad, building which is the subject of this appeal is a direct contrast to other garages within the vicinity, and is not in-keeping with the general character and appearance of the immediate locality. In addition to this the appeal proposal would also result in two structures for housing vehicles to the front of the dwelling which would be uncharacteristic.

The garages which serve dwellings within the locality do not appear dominant and are visually appropriate within the street scene due to their consistent design and choice of materials. The appeal proposal is a notably incongruous feature to which is attention is drawn, as an alien feature with the street scene, very shortly after turning left into [address] (the second junction within [address] itself, not the junction with the B684). On this basis, I am of the opinion that the existing garage structures, which are characteristic of the locality, are visually acceptable however, the caravan port is not by virtue of its design, positioning and general incompatibility with the character of the area. In addition to this the caravan port roof exceeds the eave height of the host dwelling’s garage resulting in an awkward visual contrast when viewed against the gable end of the existing garage.

I note from the appellant’s original planning statement, and their grounds of appeal, that the caravan port has been constructed from timber and painted grey with that colour bearing resemblance to the colour of the host dwelling’s mock Tudor frontage. Despite this, I do not find that the choice of colour alone is in this case sufficient to make the proposal acceptable in the context of the frontage of the appeal site or the street scene itself. It is acknowledged that timber is a natural material and that it has been painted to match the dwelling, but the overall design, positioning and visual implications of the structure are inappropriate.

I note that the appellant makes reference, within their original planning statements, to the fact the storage of the caravan on the property frontage does not require planning permission. The ability to park a caravan, or large vehicles, on the driveway of a property is acknowledged but, in this case, the outlined fallback position would be visually more intrusive than the proposal to retain the caravan port which has been constructed. I also acknowledge that there is no uniform building line along [address], however, the proposal results in a caravan port in front of the garage structure which overall further contributes to visual clutter and inappropriate development in the context of the general estate setting.

The appellant is noted to have offered planting as well as having undertaken some planting to date on site and whilst this is acknowledged, it should be kept in mind that character and appearance are separate matters. Even if the proposed planting were considered to make the proposal acceptable in terms of appearance, due to screening or softening views within the street scene, this would not overcome the fact that I find the flat roof, timber frame, structure, to be uncharacteristic. The same applies to the appellant’s offer to replace the tree which is understood to have been removed prior to construction – though its removal did not require consent.

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not cause any adverse impact on neighbouring amenity and does not give rise to any highway safety or parking concerns meaning that the scope of the appeal is limited to that as stated within the main issue defined above. Despite this, the proposal by reason of its scale, design and siting, results in significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area as well as being a development which is out of character with the area resulting in a negative incongruous feature within the street scene.

The proposal is one which falls to be assessed against the Local Plan in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) is a material consideration it does not change the starting point for determination being the Local Plan and I do not find that, under the Framework, harm must be significant. The proposal is inconsistent with a basic requirement to contribute positively to an area. In this case, for the reasons I have outlined, I find that the proposal is inappropriate and poorly designed in the context of the appeal site and the character of the area as well as the street scene of [address].

The proposal therefore fails to meet the objectives of Gedling Borough Council Aligned Core [name] 1 September 2014 Policy 10, which requires new development to make a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place as well as requiring them to be assessed in terms of materials, architectural style and detailing. The proposal would also fail to meet the objectives of Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 July 2018 Policy LPD43 which requires extensions or alterations to dwellings to be in keeping with the surrounding character in terms of height, built form and generic design as well as being contrary to paragraph 135, of the Framework, which requires decisions should ensure that developments will function well, add to the overall quality of the area and are sympathetic to local character and history.

The appellant references, within their appeal statement, that the Council did not engage with the appellant or their agent throughout the planning process but, despite this, I have considered the case based upon its own merits and for the reasons set out I find the proposal to be inappropriate to an extent which is sufficient to dismiss this appeal.

I note third party comments which have been received during the application process. It is noted that it is stated that there are restrictive covenants on the site, however, these are private legal matters and not planning matters and therefore these do not fall within the scope of this appeal. The withdrawal of permitted development rights for the site is of limited relevance due to the location of the proposal, being forward of the principal elevation, being one which could not come under permitted development in any case and is one which would require full planning permission.

Removal of a tree, whilst acknowledged, is not one which required consent and concern with regard to fire hazards are acknowledged but notwithstanding the fact that this is not covered by planning policy I have no evidence to suggest that the proposal would represent a fire hazard in any case.

Concern is noted to have been raised with regard to consultation; however, I have no evidence to suggest that the consultation procedure has been undertaken in any other way except in accordance with the relevant development management procedure order. I have dealt with matters relating to design, build and general character of the area in the context of the main issue above which responds to many of the comments made within third party representations noted as part of the submission and now this appeal.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.