Single storey carport

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 11 May 2021 by Mr James Blackwell LLB (Hons) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/21/3270024 Walnut Lodge, Tudor Avenue, Chieveley, Newbury RG20 8RW • 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 and Mrs A Pearson against the decision of West Berkshire District Council. • The application Ref 20/02377/HOUSE, dated 7 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 8 December 2020. • The development proposed is a single storey carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on nearby trees; and • the effect of the proposed development on the risk of flooding in the local area. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property sits among a small collection of detached dwellings along Tudor Avenue, each of which benefit from separate garages, driveways and sizeable gardens. Tudor Avenue is a quiet cul-de-sac serving these properties, which is flanked on either side by verge and a collection of mature trees and hedgerows. Taken together, these aspects of the road act as a natural buffer between the open countryside to the north and the cluster of dwellings in which the appeal property is located. 4. Most of the built form comprised within the curtilage of the various dwellings along Tudor Avenue is set back from the roadside and is well screened by boundary treatments along the road. These features of the settlement add additional prominence to the verdant quality of Tudor Avenue, which in turn contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 5. The proposed development would be sited on the driveway of the appeal property, underneath the canopy of trees which sit within the verge of Tudor Avenue. There is already a separate double garage within the driveway, and Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/21/3270024 2 whilst this is largely obscured from view by virtue of the boundary hedgerow, the roof of the garage is clearly visible from the road. The garage is prominent along Tudor Avenue, as it is one of the closest built structures to the road. The development proposed would be sited even closer to the highway. The addition of further built form in such close proximity to the existing garage would add yet more prominence, which would detract from the verdant quality of Tudor Avenue. 6. For these reasons, the proposals would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and would therefore conflict with Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) and Policies C3 and C6 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD (2006 – 2026). Taken together, these policies require new development to respect and enhance the character of the area in which it is sited, and to be appropriate in terms of location and scale in the context of existing settlement form and pattern. Trees 7. The Council’s Tree Officer has highlighted that the proposed development would be within the root protection zone of the trees located on the grass verge adjacent to the appeal property. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s intention to commission a survey to assess any potential impact on these trees should the appeal be allowed, I have no evidence before me on which I can assess any potential for adverse impact, nor any evidence of measures which may be employed to mitigate against such impact. 8. Without any evidence before me to indicate otherwise, the development proposals would therefore be contrary to policies ADPP5, CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the development plan, all of which seek to preserve and protect green infrastructure within the district. Flood risk 9. The Council has indicated that the proposed development is located within an area at risk of surface water flooding. In the absence of any substantive evidence from the appellant in terms of flood risk, I cannot properly assess the extent of such risk, nor whether any issues identified could be overcome by condition. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policy to CS16 of the development plan, which requires the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment in areas with historic records of groundwater and/or surface water flooding. Conclusion 10. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. James Blackwell INSPECTOR