Oak and timber garage and carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 December 2016 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 January 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/K2610/D/16/3157266 41 Delane Road, Drayton, Norwich NR8 6DL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Tim Woolner against the decision of Broadland District Council.  The application Ref 20160956, dated 24 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 10 August 2016.  The development proposed is an oak and timber garage and carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Delane Road comprises detached bungalows which are set back from the road behind front gardens giving a general sense of spaciousness along the road frontages. The appeal property is a chalet bungalow which is similarly set back. Its front garden is enclosed by an evergreen hedge, trees and shrubs. The property has a drive and car parking spaces at the front. I saw on my visit that there are some separate garages along the road but that they are set back from the front boundaries of the plots. 4. The proposal would adjoin the front boundary of the property and would take its access from the existing drive. Its forward siting would clearly differ from the established pattern of open front gardens. Although the plan indicates that the building would directly adjoin the front and side boundaries the appellant says that the existing vegetation along the boundaries would be retained and cut back as necessary. If the vegetation were to be retained it would help to screen the proposal from view but the building would still be visible through the access and potentially above the hedge. 5. As such it would be quite prominent and out of keeping in the street scene. It would be intrusive in the context of the open frontages on the road and in the area generally. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Policy 2 of the Appeal Decision APP/K2610/D/16/3157266 2 Joint Core Strategy1 requires design to the highest possible standards, respecting local distinctiveness. Policy GC4 of the Development Management DPD2 has similar requirements. The proposal would not accord with those policies. 6. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR 1 Greater Norwich Development Partnership Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011 and 2014) 2 Broadland Development Management DPD (2015)