Appeal 3269257

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garage extension and orangery over therapy pool at [site address] , [name] (Disused) [name], [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 2020/21855/HH, dated 21 July 2020, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; [name]. 20/015 [name].

The external roof materials of the garage extension hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the details contained within the application form.

The finished ground floor levels of the development hereby permitted shall be set no lower than the ground floor levels of the existing dwelling.

An application for costs was made by the appellants against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal has been made following the Council’s failure to determine the application within the required period. Following the submission of the appeal the Council issued a decision notice setting out its position on the application. I have referred to the reason for refusal set out in the Council’s decision notice in formulating the main issue and in reaching my decision.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. I have used this description in my decision but have omitted reference to “proposed” as that is not a description of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area and on the setting of the nearby listed building.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located within the [site address] Conservation Area (the Conservation Area). The neighbouring property to the west, [name], is a grade II listed building.

The Conservation Area sits in a bowl-shaped area within the landscape, bounded to the south by the sloping land of the railway embankment and gently undulating low hills and watercourse to the north. It comprises a number of scattered mainly two storey stone-built properties with stone slate roofs. There is a single-track road through the Conservation Area with a narrow grass verge to both sides. The Conservation Area also includes a small area of countryside comprising fields bounded by stone walls, giving it an open rural character. There are open views across much of the Conservation Area and to and from the surrounding countryside to the north. A key contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is the sense of openness and the relationship between the buildings and with the surrounding countryside, reflecting the area’s farming legacy and contributing to significance.

From the information before me, the appeal property has been formed from a barn that was formerly part of [address]. It is constructed of stone and has a stone slate roof. A rear extension was added as part of the conversion, as was a detached single storey garage to the rear. To the front is a grassed garden area bounded by a stone wall on three sides. The appeal property makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area due to its former use as a barn associated with [address], its position within the Conservation Area and the style, form and materials that reflect and complement the character and appearance of the other buildings.

There would be some views of the proposed development from within the Conservation Area from the east, including from the public right of way that runs along the appeal property’s eastern boundary. Views of the proposed orangery from the east would be limited to the top most part of this elevation and its sloping roof due to the screening effect of the appeal property’s boundary wall and the dilapidated building to the east. Views of the proposed development from the west and north would be very limited given the topography and the screening effect of the neighbouring property and its boundary treatment as well as the dilapidated buildings to the north. Views from the south would be mainly limited to a glimpsed view of the rear part of the proposed garage extension.

The design, scale and materials of the proposed garage extension would reflect the existing garage. The materials would also reflect the appeal property including the stone walls that border its access and parking area and the majority of the buildings within the Conservation Area. The design of the proposed orangery is more contemporary, in particular its eastern elevation which would be mainly glazed with a dark anthracite grey frame. It would be distinguishable from the host building. However, its design and scale mean that it would be subservient and proportionate to the host property and would not appear as an incongruous addition. The rear of the appeal property has been extended and has a more domestic appearance than its southern elevation which retains more of the appearance of a barn. There would be no change to the appearance of the southern elevation of the appeal property. The location of the proposed development on its northern elevation would not therefore have an unduly domesticating effect on the appeal property and its character and appearance as a former barn would still be discernible.

Given the location, scale, design and materials proposed for the garage extension and orangery, the proposed development would complement the host property and would sit comfortably with it without over dominating or detracting from its character and appearance. The appeal property would continue to make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. The proposed development would be visible from some public viewpoints, including the adjacent public right of way. However, this would be limited, and the proposed development would not be imposing in these views or result in the loss of significant views within or into or out of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, the proposed development would not affect the open rural character of the Conservation Area to a harmful extent.

The nearby building, [name], was listed in 1989 (list entry No. 1132080) and dates from the late 17th century or early 18th century. The listing relates to [name] and attached barn. Its significance as it relates to the proposed development is derived from its historical associations with the area’s farming industry and the evidence it provides of the architectural style and building techniques of the time. The setting of the listed building, as described above including both buildings of traditional construction and a sparse rural landscape, contributes to significance.

However, the listed building sits on slightly higher ground than the appeal property and is separated from it by its large rear garden. The appeal property appears as subservient to the listed building given its historic function, its scale and the fact that it is set at a lower level. The proposed development would maintain the subservience of the appeal property to the listed building and the ability to understand their relationship and function.

There are only limited viewpoints where the proposed development would be viewed in conjunction with the listed building due to the nature of the topography and screening effects of the boundary treatments, other properties within the Conservation Area and the dilapidated buildings to the north and east. In these views, the ability to understand the listed building’s historical farming associations and architectural style would not be harmed by the proposed development given its limited scale and its location in relation to the listed building.

Given the above, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not harm the setting of the nearby listed building. As such, the significance of these designated heritage assets would not be harmed and there would therefore be no conflict with Policy ENV3(b) of the Craven Local Plan 2012 to 2032 (adopted 2019) which seeks to ensure that proposals affecting a designated heritage asset conserve those elements which contribute to its significance.

In reaching this conclusion, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building and have given special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, having regard to the six tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. For the sake of clarity and enforceability, I have amended the conditions as necessary. A condition to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition is also necessary to ensure that the roof materials used for the garage extension are in accordance with the details specified in the application form, in the interests of certainty. Furthermore, a condition requiring that the finished ground floor levels are no lower than those of the appeal property is necessary to reduce the risk of flooding.

I have found that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area or on the setting of the nearby listed building. It would therefore accord with the expectations of the development plan as a whole and relevant statute. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.