Appeal 6005365

The appeal is dismissed.

The porch had been completed by the time of my visit, and appears to be in accordance with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

[site address] is a traditional two-storey semi-detached property. The dwellings in the surrounding area are mixed in age, architectural style, design and materials. Many of the properties in the surrounding area have been extended, including a number of porches.

Since the Authority determined the planning application, the formerly incongruous red-brick finish on the porch has now been painted white to match the front elevation. The porch has slate roof tiles which match the existing roof tiles. Therefore, the elevation and roof materials are appropriate to the host dwelling.

The porch has uPVC framed windows. Whilst these windows use a different material to the existing timber windows on the front elevation of [site address] , the windows are narrow and located on the side elevations of the porch and therefore are not a prominent feature on the front elevation of the dwelling, and the use of this material is not unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area.

The New Forest National Park Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) advises that porches should relate well to the dwelling and should be in proportion to the front elevation. Whilst the porch has a modest depth, and the roof has a similar pitch to the previous porch, the wider footprint has resulted in a much taller roof than the previous porch. The porch does not interrupt the windows, or their positioning, but unlike the similarly designed porch of the adjoining semi-detached property, it protrudes significantly above the first-floor cill height, is out of proportion with the existing dwelling, and is the dominant feature on the front elevation.

The dwelling is set back in the curtilage, however the front boundary consists of a low hedge and field gate and therefore the porch is a prominent feature in the street scene. Whilst the appeal property is separated from the adjoining semi-detached property by a hedge, and the frontage of the properties varies, the form of the two dwellings are still seen together, and the porch, by virtue of its width and height unbalances the appearance of the properties which is harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The Authority has made reference to the appeal property being of a traditional forest cottage style, but has not substantiated on the significance of this. The appeal property is not listed or in a conservation area, but, despite the mixed area, as a traditional dwelling contributes to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

My attention has been drawn to a number of other porches in the surrounding area, which the appellant contends supports their case. However, the location of these porches has not been provided, therefore I cannot be certain that they are comparable to the appeal before me. During my site visit I observed that there were very few porches that influence the immediate environment of the appeal site.

The appellant has presented me with a permitted development fallback position for a similar porch with a lower hipped roof. [name] have not been provided with full plan details for the suggested fallback position, the evidence provided supports that the suggested fallback is likely to be available. However, while the roof design on the fallback scheme is not in keeping with the traditional character and appearance of [site address] , it would be considerably lower and less dominant on the front elevation. Therefore, overall the suggested fallback scheme would have a similar, but no worse, effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area, relative to the appeal development. As such, I have attached the suggested fallback under permitted development limited weight.

I conclude that the development is unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it conflicts with Policies DP2, DP18 and SP17 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan (2019). These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development enhances local character and distinctiveness, and is appropriate and sympathetic in terms of scale, appearance and form.

Whilst no harm to the New Forest National Park (NFNP) has been identified by the parties, dismissing the appeal would maintain the current situation and therefore further the statutory purposes of the NFNP, which includes conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the designated area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.