Appeal 6005020

The appeal is dismissed.

An amended plan was submitted at the appeal stage1. The appellant has not asked for this alternative scheme to be considered as part of this appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, I have considered the same plans that the Council determined the planning application on.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 54), a 2-storey detached dwelling with roof-level accommodation located on a key route through Standlake in a predominantly residential area. No [address] of detached dwellings. Opposite the site, on the other side of [address], is a cricket field. High netting adjoining the field faces [address]. Nearby dwellings on the site’s side of [address] are mostly set-back behind open frontages or mature hedgerow. [address] (No 50) is positioned close to [address], but constitutes the exception rather than the rule in the vicinity in this respect. Garages are often sited to the side / rear of dwellings, rather than to the front. As such, the local area has a verdant and open character.

In contrast to the established pattern of development in the area, the proposed detached double car port with log store would be positioned in close proximity to the front boundary fence. I observed that, taking account of nearby dwellings (including No 50), it would be clearly visible in the street scene. Its pitched-roof would be set-in slightly from the front boundary fence in comparison with the east elevation of the log store, and the proposed development would not appear out-of- 1 Plan and Elevations ([name]. 1700-01) ([name]) scale in comparison with No 54. Nevertheless, due to its substantial footprint and the height of the pitched-roof, and its proposed siting close to the boundary fence, the structure as a whole would appear as an overly-prominent and visually intrusive feature in the street scene. The use of appropriate materials would soften its impact, but not sufficiently to adequately mitigate its adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, including to its open character.

I acknowledge that No 54 was built on an open field parcel, and accordingly introduced a pronounced change to the character of the site. However, as an appropriately-sited dwelling in comparison with the row of which it forms a part, No 54 complements the prevailing pattern of development in the area, whereas, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would not. This is not a matter which alters my findings above.

I observed the detached single-storey garage at [address] (No 3). That garage is positioned very close to No 3, meaning that it appears more integrated with its host dwelling when compared with the proposed development at No 54. Moreover, a sizeable gap exists between the garage and the front boundary wall, which would not be the case with respect to the proposed development relative to No 54’s front boundary fence. As such, the proposed development’s impact on the street scene of [address] would be more pronounced than the garage at No 3’s impact on the street scene of [address]. Hence, that example is not directly comparable with the proposed development. It does not alter my findings on this

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy OS2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (adopted 2018) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, all development should form a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of development and / or the character of the area, and with Policy OS4 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, new development should contribute to local distinctiveness.

I note that the appellant requires 2 vehicles to be garaged for insurance reasons, but that the existing garage at No 54 is unsuitable for modern vehicles. As the proposed development would mainly bring benefits of a private nature, and it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims, this benefit merits little weight in favour of the proposed development. It would not outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.