For a carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 March 2022 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st March 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/P1133/D/22/3290326 39 Firleigh Road, Kingsteignton TQ12 3NH • 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 Mrs Kay Rhodes against the decision of Teignbridge District Council. • The application Ref 21/01955/HOU, dated 26 September 2021, was refused by notice dated 29 November 2021. • The development proposed is for a carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The proposed carport had been erected at the time of my site visit along with a fence adjacent to its western elevation along the road frontage. I note that the Council within their decision notice referred to the description as being the ‘retention’ of carport and fence and whilst ‘retention’ does not in itself constitute operational development, nonetheless I have had regard to this and have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The proposal comprises a timber carport structure currently housing a touring caravan which projects beyond its southern elevation. It is quite crude in its form of construction and its intrusiveness in the road is accentuated by the structure’s height and position adjacent to the footway. 5. There are a number of detached garage buildings in similar locations; although these tend to have rendered walls and a gable pitched roofs. There is also a range of front boundary treatments within the road, although these are often lower and in many cases constitute some form of masonry construction. 6. I acknowledge that the appellant originally considered the proposal to be Permitted Development, but nonetheless it falls upon me to determine the Appeal Decision APP/P1133/D/22/3290326 2 scheme on its merits. The examples cited at 30 and 51 Firleigh Road are noted, however ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits. 7. I find that the proposal appears incongruous in the street scene and conflicts with Policies S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (adopted 6th May 2014) which together require development to be of a high quality design to integrate with, and where possible, enhance the character of the adjoining built environment, whilst ensuring that design and materials do not have a dominant impact on the street scene. Conclusion 8. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR