Appeal 6005384

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[address] is characterised by large, detached homes set within generous plots and displaying a mix of architectural styles. The properties sit well back from the road and follow a consistent building line that aligns with the road’s gentle curvature. There are some examples of dwellings which have a two / three port garage which are forward of the main dwelling, but these generally still follow the prevailing linear building pattern. Most of the dwellings in the area have a strong building line and this is reflected in the positioning of properties 14, 12 and [address]. Many plots include wide frontages with mature boundary planting, grass verges and established trees. Together, these elements positively contribute to the appearance of a distinctly residential environment with a spacious, green and verdant character.

The appeal site is on a spacious corner plot within [address]. There is a change in levels which means the site sits slightly higher than the road. The appeal site benefits from outline permission allowed on appeal under 3262377 which was for demolition of an existing detached house to provide 2.5 storey block of 5 flats with associated car parking. Subsequently, all reserved matters have been approved. The appeal site currently has hoarding in place and is an active building site. The appellant indicates a new 1.8m native boundary hedgerow has been secured via reserved matters application 2023/1180 which pertained to landscaping.

The proposed development is for a single-storey open and crown-roofed car port for 5 cars. The proposed development would rearrange the approved parking arrangement to provide 5 spaces in the car port and then 5 tandem spaces. The car port itself has been relocated and reoriented to be set slightly behind the approved apartments but would be set forward of the property known as [address]. It is also proposed that the approved swing gate at the main access is changed to a sliding gate.

The proposed carport would be subservient to the approved apartments which is a substantial building. However, the proposed car port would be set forward of [address] and this would not be in keeping with the established linear building pattern and would look incongruous in the street scene. The proposed car port is open sided and would be positioned further back in the frontage of the approved apartment building. Nevertheless, the proposed carport would be substantial in length, height and scale and would diminish the spacious character of the frontage. This loss of spaciousness would be harmful to the wider character and appearance of the area.

There is a slight change in site levels between the road and the appeal site. This combined with the proposed car port’s large scale and position in the frontage of a corner plot means it would be more visible from the street scene which would further compound the harm I have identified. The approved 1.8m native boundary hedgerow would not mitigate this harm.

Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework finds that design guides and design codes carry weight in decision-making and should be produced either as part of a plan or as supplementary planning documents. The Elmbridge Design Code (the Code) in summary finds that new developments must create positive relationships to neighbouring plots by respecting existing primary building lines. It finds that new developments should follow the vertical and horizontal rhythm established by the existing and distinctive elements on a street. The proposed development is not reflective of the design principles set out in the Code and is therefore contrary to it.

I acknowledge that the approved parking layout is also in the frontage of the appeal site but does not contain vertical built form. This means the 1.8m native hedgerow would provide more effective mitigation; thus the approved parking layout would preserve the spaciousness of the frontage and general rhythm of built form along [address].

The proposed development includes changing a swing gate to the sliding gate. This would be a limited change from the approved development and in isolation the proposed gate’s design would be acceptable. However, this does not outweigh the harm I have already identified.

In conclusion, when all is considered, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of surrounding area. Consequently, it would not comply with the provisions set out in policies CS10 and CS17 of the [name] 2011 and policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. In summary, these policies seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area through high quality design.

The appellant has outlined they have tried to address the concerns of the Inspector in appeal decision 3374404. The decision has been provided but I do not have the full details before me. Thus, I have determined the appeal on its own individual circumstances, based on the evidence before me.

My attention has been drawn to developments at [name] for development of 15 apartments and [address] for 8 semi-detached houses to highlight the varied and evolving character of the area. These developments are not within corner plots and do not appear to be directly comparable to the appeal site. In any event, I do not have the full details of these cases before me, including the planning history or balance. Thus, I have determined the appeal on its own individual circumstances, based on the evidence.

A number of examples of garages have also been drawn to my attention. From my site visit, I could see some of the garages had two / three ports and some were set forward of the main dwelling house. However, many were not overly visible from the wider street scene and were not in the frontage of a corner plot. In any event, the proposed car port would be significantly larger than the existing garages and is in the frontage of a corner plot. Thus, these examples are not directly comparable.

I acknowledge that a tennis court once occupied the front portion of the appeal site, but I can see from my site visit that the tennis court has been demolished. In any event, a tennis court due to its open nature would not have a harmful effect of the open character of the frontage. Thus, the proposed development cannot be reasonably compared with the former tennis court.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would not likely cause harm to living conditions or mature vegetation on the site. These matters weigh neutrally in my decision.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.