Construction of car port to existing driveway, and construction of porch over entrance gate

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate p Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 November 2018 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D5120/D/18/3212560 17a Carisbrooke Avenue, Bexley, DA5 3HR  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 R Maidment against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bexley.  The application Ref 18/01697/FUL, dated 4 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 August 2018.  The development proposed is construction of car port to existing driveway, and construction of porch over entrance gate. Preliminary matters 1. The car port shown in the submitted drawings has already been erected, though the submitted drawings show it is proposed to position this further back into the site. The porch has been partly erected. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed siting of the car port would be notably far forward of the building line to Carisbrooke Avenue and, due to the location on a bend, a hill and at the junction with Deniston Avenue, is visible in long views. It would be an incongruous structure due to its position, height, proportions, design and use of materials (with roof tiles that do not match other properties). The entrance canopy, which was partly complete at the time of my visit, displays similar traits of incongruity. 5. Policies H9 and ENV39 of the London Borough of Bexley Unitary Development Plan 2004 require all development proposals to be compatible with the character of the existing building and adjacent buildings. The development would not display these requirements; it fails to relate to the design, proportions, siting or use of materials seen along the roads. 6. I acknowledge the appellant wishes to provide a covered are for a car, and that there is limited objection from nearby residents to the scheme. However, I Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/18/3212560 2 must balance these points against other matters of acknowledged importance, as set out in the Council's adopted development plan. The conflict with those policies is sufficient to outweigh other considerations, and the appeal is dismissed for the scheme. C J Leigh INSPECTOR