Extension to existing car port

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 October 2017 by H Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/D/17/3185149 Holderness House, Penn Road, Knotty Green, Buckinghamshire HP9 2LW  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 Peter Manning against the decision of Chiltern District Council.  The application Ref CH/2017/0947/FA, dated 19 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 July 2017.  The development proposed is extension to existing car port. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to existing car port at Holderness House, Penn Road, Knotty Green, Buckinghamshire HP9 2LW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CH/2017/0947/FA, dated 19 April 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Plan and Elevations Drawing No 2351 PL 100 Revision A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The area around the appeal site is characterised by detached dwellings sitting within large plots, many of which are fronted by walls or fences and mature trees. This creates a spacious and verdant residential scene. The proposed building would extend the existing garage and car port to create an ‘L’ Shaped building wrapping around the front of the site. The property is well-screened by mature evergreen and deciduous trees. 4. I agree with the Council that the proposal would form a significant front projection extending forward from the main house. However, the house is of very substantial proportions and the car port would not be so large that it Appeal Decision APP/X0415/D/17/3185149 2 would unbalance the relationship between the ancillary buildings in relation to the house. It would also be of modest height in comparison to the existing garage and car port, which would assist in minimising its overall mass. In this respect, the proposal would accord with policy H20 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997 consolidated in 2007 and 2011) (LP), which requires ancillary residential buildings to be modest in size and subordinate to the existing dwelling house. It would also accord with LP policy GC1, which amongst other things, says that development should be in scale with its surroundings. 5. The proposed materials would match those of the existing garage and car port and broadly reflect the character of the main house thereby sitting comfortably with these existing buildings. In this respect the proposal would also therefore accord with this requirement of LP policy GC1 and with the similar requirement of LP policy H15. 6. The car port would be set back behind the front property boundary, which itself lies behind a substantial grass verge. Given the building’s proposed height and the screening afforded by existing vegetation along the front boundary, the car port would not be obtrusive in views along Penn Road. I note the Council’s argument that the vegetation could be removed. However, given the privacy it provides for the appellant, I am not persuaded that there is any obvious reason for its removal. In any case, the Council has the power to give the trees statutory protection. This argument therefore carries little weight and the proposal would not result in any material visual harm to the area’s appearance. Thus, there would be no conflict with LP policy H13 that seeks to prevent adverse effects on the street scene or the character and appearance of the locality or with the similar aims of LP policy H15. 7. There are a number of properties nearby that have substantial ancillary buildings close the street and some of these are more open to view than would be the case with the appeal scheme. I therefore consider this arrangement to be a defining physical characteristic of the Penn Road street scene. As such, the proposed car port would not be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality. The proposal would therefore accord with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (2011) that seeks a high quality of design which reflects and respects the character of the surrounding area and local distinctiveness. For this reason in addition to those already given, it would also reflect the advice in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013). Conditions 8. I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition is also imposed in relation to materials in order to ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory. Conclusion 9. For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal succeeds. Hayden Baugh-Jones Inspector