Appeal 6005077

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the decision notice, since it more comprehensively describes the appeal scheme than the description on both the application and appeal forms.

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

The appeal property comprises a detached, two-storey house located on the north side of [address] on the corner of the junction with [address]. It lies within an established residential area within the built-up settlement boundary. The dwelling fronts onto [address] where it forms part of a street scene which, on both sides of the road, predominantly comprises two-storey detached and semi-detached houses, with some interspersed bungalows and chalet bungalows. There are a variety of building materials, roof forms, fenestration designs and on-site parking and garaging arrangements.

The appeal property comprises a traditionally designed brick dwelling with a pitched slate tiled roof. Vehicular access is from [address]. This serves forecourt and side driveway parking as well as a detached single garage which is set back behind the house.

Whilst the property fronts onto [address], it is largely obscured by high frontage hedging when approaching the site from the east along this road. However, the site occupies a visually prominent position on the corner with [address], and the western part of the site is highly visible when approaching it from the west along [address] and from within [address]. As such, the proposal being sited to the west side of the dwelling would be visually prominent within the streetscape of [address].

This cul-de-sac of bungalows and a chalet bungalow has a very different character to that of [address]. It is smaller and more tranquil. Properties are set back behind grassed front gardens bounded by low hedging, and grass and hedging also feature within the roadside verges. As such, the road has a verdant and spacious character. This is very apparent at the entrance to the Close where roadside grass verges, low hedging and space to the side of Nos. 64 and [address] all make a positive contribution to the openness and verdant nature of the Close.

The appellant has recently purchased a strip of land adjacent to the western boundary of the appeal site, which comprised landscaping under the original planning permission for the [address] development. The appeal scheme includes the change of use of this land to residential use, and the appellant has confirmed the intention to keep this land as open garden area.

Subject to the land remaining as open garden land, the Council has raised no objection to this element of the appeal scheme. I saw during my site visit that the low boundary hedging, which is a prevailing positive feature of the [address] streetscape, remains in situ around this land, and I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment of this element of the appeal scheme.

The existing garage on the appeal site does not have a strong visual presence within the streetscape due to its set back position from the site frontage and its low eaves height and shallow pitched roof form which means that it sits discretely behind, and is largely screened by, the timber fencing along the western site boundary.

Having regard to the above, notwithstanding its position close to the western site boundary and in front of the established front building line along the east side of [address], the existing garage maintains the open and spacious character of [address] and does not obscure views of the bungalows behind, nor appear visually dominant in comparison to them.

The appeal scheme would replace the existing garage with a significantly larger, wider and higher structure. Its western side wall would align with that of the existing garage. However, the proposed garage would be positioned much closer to the site frontage, being only slightly set back from the front wall of the dwelling. Notwithstanding its asymmetrically sloping form, the proposal would have a bulky and high roof, with the roof ridge extending close to the height of the eaves of the main house, and it would present a high gable end facing the street.

As such, the proposed garage would be highly visible within the street scene and have a notably more dominant visual presence than that of the existing garage and that of the 1.8m high fencing that previously existed along the western site boundary prior to the appellant purchasing a strip of landscaped highway land adjacent to the site.

In views from the south when approaching [address], the proposed extension would be perceived as encroaching upon the existing established front building line on the east side of the road, and it would obscure the roofs of bungalows behind the appeal site, which are currently visible above the existing garage.

Moreover, the appeal scheme would infill a large amount of the existing gap between the side wall of the house and the edge of the carriageway of [address], close to the area where the roadway narrows as part of the entrance into that road. It would be significantly closer to the back of the carriageway than the side wall of the bungalow at No.[address] on the opposite side of the road.

All the above, taken together, would amount to a detrimental erosion of the established pleasant spacious character of [address]. This would occur at a visually prominent location at the entrance to the road and would have a detrimental impact upon the prevailing townscape within the immediate locality.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other cul-de-sac developments leading off [address] at [address] and [address] where corner properties are built close to their boundaries. I saw during my visit that these developments are not directly comparable to the circumstances of this appeal, having regard to factors including the gated nature of the developments and the character of the surrounding built development. As such, they do not justify the harm I have identified to the character of [address].

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy ENV3 of the New Forest District Outside the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 [name]: Planning Strategy (July 2020) in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that all development should achieve high quality design that contributes positively to local distinctiveness and enhances the character of the locality.

This accords with the aims of Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) of achieving well-designed places.

I acknowledge that no objections to the appeal scheme have been raised by neighbours or the Parish Council. However, this does not alter my conclusion in respect of the main issue.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.