Appeal 6005403

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the development which is the subject of this appeal has already been substantially carried out, the application is to be treated as one made under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The “Description of [address]” that is given in the planning application form is very extensive and it includes explanatory material. Notwithstanding this description, therefore, the nature of the proposal can more clearly and succinctly be expressed as set out in the Council’s decision notice and in the appeal form, as “the erection of a storage facility and car port”. That is the description that I have adopted in the banner heading, above.

The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

The appeal site is located in the open countryside, to the north of the City of Peterborough. It lies at the end of a long, straight, narrow country lane, [site address] , that runs between open fields in a flat agricultural landscape. There are two properties at the end of the lane, including the appeal site.

‘ [site address] ’ is an attractive dwelling, constructed with stone-faced walls and pitched roofs, set in a large plot that is mainly laid to grass. The house (with a double garage) was a modern replacement of an older house and outbuildings and Appeal Decision: 6005403 the site also has a history of commercial use, although information about this is limited. There is a large building in the north-west corner of the plot that has been extended by the addition of a storage building, while a car port has been built close to the rear of the house. Both are constructed with steel structural frames, clad with metal sheeting on the roofs and, in the case of the storage building, on the side walls. The car port has open sides, although the submitted drawings indicate that it would be closed on two sides, once completed.

Two, relatively small, portacabin style buildings are also located within the grounds, at the rear of the house, although these are in a poor state. A more flimsy building (described as a “tent”) that is shown on the site plan to the east of the house has disappeared and this area is now grassed over.

The whole site is surrounded by dense mature hedges and trees that effectively screen it from public view, as well as by drainage ditches. A secure high gate and fence control the entrance to the site.

The car port and storage building have been constructed and are almost wholly complete. The application is made retrospectively, therefore, and planning permission is now sought for these buildings, in accordance with the submitted “Householder Application for Planning Permission for works or extension to a dwelling”.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. Notably, Policies LP16 and LP27 of the ‘Peterborough Local Plan 2016-2036’ (which was adopted in July 2019) are specifically concerned with design issues. In particular, Policy LP16 requires proposed development “to positively contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area” and (among other things) to “use appropriate, high quality materials which reinforce or enhance local distinctiveness”. Policy LP27 focusses more directly on landscape considerations and requires new development to be “sensitive to its landscape setting”.

The new storage facility and car port are simple structures that are “industrial” in character, with steel frames and metal cladding, under shallow pitched roofs. They are relatively large units. At the time of the site visit, the storage building was fully occupied by machinery (including some large pieces of equipment), as well as by parts and related materials of various types, and the use does not appear to be obviously “domestic” in nature. The car port, located close to the rear of the house, was sheltering a mobile caravan and four cars (two of which were covered) as well as some other equipment and garden furniture.

The new structures are modern and utilitarian in appearance and neither their form nor their materials could be said to enhance the host building or its setting in the countryside, although modern farm buildings are often in this form. The appeal site is a large plot but, even though it is well screened, the additional buildings and the intensification of the use of the site would erode the rural character of the Appeal Decision: 6005403 surroundings, contrary to policies in the Local Plan. By contrast, the removal of the portacabins would have only a minor effect on the character of the plot overall.

The need for the new buildings is not convincingly explained, however. The new storage building is a substantial structure and it does not appear to be in use for ancillary domestic purposes, while the car port is much larger in terms of both height and area than would be usual as an adjunct to a dwellinghouse. The submissions assert that there is a need for the buildings but do not justify the buildings by reference to the residential use of ‘ [site address] ’, in spite of the application’s status as a “householder application”.

It is pointed out that dwellinghouses may have the benefit of “permitted development” rights but, in this case, the claimed “fallback” position is only presented in general terms. I accept that these provisions are to be taken into account in this case but I am not persuaded that they provide a strong argument in favour of the scheme, in view of the lack of a specific scheme.

Evidently, the appeal site is part of an established residential site but, in my view, the development has a harmful effect on the setting of the host building and on the character and its surroundings more generally. The benefits of the scheme do not outweigh these planning objections.

In reaching my conclusions I have considered whether one or other of the two buildings would be acceptable in planning terms but I am convinced that the objections that have been identified apply to both elements and that neither is justified by a convincing counter balancing argument in support.

Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that the appeal must fail. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.