Front porch
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Sustainability
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 8 August 2023
by L Clark BA(HONS) DIPTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 August 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/N1350/D/23/3321983
37 Leach Grove, Darlington DL3 0TW
• 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 Nick Cooper against the decision of Darlington Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 23/00068/FUL, dated 19 January 2023, was refused by notice dated
27 February 2023.
• The development proposed is a front porch.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the existing building and surrounding area, with particular
regards to the design, location and materials.
Reasons
3. The appeal property is located on the periphery of a modern housing estate. It
is set within a corner plot, set forward of the building line created by its
immediate neighbours and benefits from a greater separation between plots
than nearby development by virtue of its double garage. The estate is
characterised predominantly by two storey semi-detached and detached
residential dwellings, with canopies over the front doors, varying in design.
4. The porch would be set centrally within the front elevation and would result in
a large forward projection. It would differ significantly from the treatment of
the front of nearby properties because of its scale, height and enclosed design,
and would result in an incongruent and unduly prominent feature to the front
elevation of the host property.
5. Furthermore, whilst I acknowledge that there are differences in terms of brick
pattern and materials between the appeal property and its immediate
neighbours and that oak would weather; these differences do not persuade me
that the host property is markedly different to warrant the use of alternative
materials to those found upon it. As such I consider the materials fail to
respond positively to the local context.
6. I conclude that the porch would cause harm to the character and appearance of
both the host property and wider area, contrary to the design principles of
Policy DC1 of the Darlington Local Plan 2016-2036 which seeks, amongst other
matters for development to respond positively to the local context in terms of
Appeal Decision APP/N1350/D/23/3321983
2
scale, form, height and materials. There would also be conflict with the
National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks, amongst other matters for
development to be sympathetic to local character.
Other Matters
7. Whilst it is submitted that examples of this type of structure are found within
Darlington on similar house types, no examples have been provided.
Furthermore, the presence of examples elsewhere does not provide justification
for harmful development.
8. With regards to the appellant’s claim that the porch would allow for enhanced
views across the neighbouring open space which could act as a deterrent to
anti-social behaviour, I have not been presented with substantive evidence
regarding any existing anti-social behaviour. I note the suggestion that the
porch would assist with the energy efficiency of the building, but this has not
been substantiated. These matters carry limited weight and do not alter those
conclusions that I have reached.
Conclusion
9. For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters
raised, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole.
There are no other considerations which indicate that the decision should be
made other than in accordance with the development plan. I conclude that the
appeal should be dismissed.
L Clark
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.