Appeal 6004951

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were submitted during the course of the application; however, they were neither accepted nor commented upon by the Council. As these plans have not been subject to consultation, their consideration at this stage could prejudice the interests of third parties. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that were before the Council at the time it made its decision.

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

The proposal relates to a new dwelling that is currently under construction adjacent to [address] along [site address] . [site address] extends from the village of [site address] and, being located towards the edge of the settlement, development in the immediate vicinity is more dispersed in character than the more built-up confines of the village to the south, with an area of open space opposite. The dwelling under construction presently sits relatively unobtrusively within the street scene, set back appropriately from the site frontage and maintaining the open and more spacious qualities that characterise the area. A relatively low and informal hedgerow along the frontage further reinforces this sense of openness and softens the site’s appearance. Therefore, at present, the appeal site, including the new dwelling under construction, contributes positively to the more open character of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings.

Whilst the carport would be of a relatively modest scale, would use traditional materials, and be open fronted, by virtue of its siting and position forward of the dwelling within the plot, it would introduce a visually prominent and incongruous addition that undermines the more spacious character of the frontage. Rather than creating a traditional courtyard feel or sense of enclosure to the site, both of which the appellant alleges, the proposal would represent a cramped form of development that is not in keeping with the local context in terms of spacing, siting and layout. This is especially the case considering the modest size of the plot, the size of the new dwelling house and the limited available space around the front of the dwelling.

Whilst it would respect the building line of the [address] to the north, the [address] is positioned uncharacteristically closer to the highway than other dwellings in the immediate area. The new dwelling appears to currently sit on roughly the same building line as the dwelling to the south known as Corndell. As a result of its siting to the front of the dwelling, despite the proposal hiding parked vehicles from public views as suggested by the appellant, it would result in a more cramped form of development, which would be more prominent in the streetscene and would dominate the entrance to the development, rather than appearing as subordinate to the dwelling, as claimed by the appellant. This would harm the more established open character of the local area where outbuildings are generally either located to the side or rear of the buildings.

The absence of enclosed floorspace, and the fact that the proposal would be sited entirely on the approved driveway and forecourt, does not outweigh the impact of the built form, which would erode the openness of the forecourt and harm the character of the street scene. Limited weight is also given to the retention of garden provision given the harm identified.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of outbuildings in the surrounding area, which I also observed during my site visit. However, while the area includes a variety of parking structures, these appear to be generally associated with larger plots and more spacious layouts. The limited information provided in respect of these examples, consisting only of photographs and their locations, and lacking detail on their planning history or context, limits the weight that can be afforded to them. Nevertheless, I have considered the proposal on its own merits and conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, it would not reflect the prevailing pattern of development or the spatial characteristics of the immediate area.

The site lies within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA), where development is expected to reflect prevailing form, scale, proportions, and the diversity of styles, materials, colours, and textures. The proposed use of traditional materials would broadly accord with these expectations and remain sympathetic to the wider context. Moreover, no objections have been raised by the [name], and the Council’s delegated report refers to the acceptability of the materials. Taking these factors together, I am not persuaded that the identified harm would be such as to detract from the overall significance of the CA. I therefore conclude that the proposal would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [site address] CA. However, the absence of harm in heritage terms does not outweigh the harm identified in respect of the character and appearance of the area arising from the siting, and overall presence of the structure.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011–2029 (adopted May 2016), which requires development to be of high quality, to positively contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place, and to have due regard to the density, scale, layout, and appearance of the surrounding area.

It would also conflict with the principles set out in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), which seek good design that is sympathetic to the local area. In addition, it would conflict with guidance in paragraph 7.18 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018), which states that garages should not be excessively large in scale or overly prominent, for example, they should not be located in front of dwellings, dominate the entrance to a development, or become a focal point at the end of a vista.

It is noted that, following initial feedback from the [name] indicating their concerns, the appellant submitted revised plans which omitted the catslide log store element, in an attempt to address the concerns prior to determination. However, these amendments were not accepted by the Council, as set out in my preliminary matter above. The officer’s report states that “the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application”, which the appellant contends is inaccurate. Whilst this apparent contradiction may be a source of frustration for the appellant, it does not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the proposal.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, worthy of sufficient weight, that would indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance therewith. The appeal is therefore dismissed.