Appeal 3275601

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for replacement of roof to existing outbuildings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/21/00207/DOM, dated 25 January 2021, and the plans submitted with it.

The description of the development used in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form. However, for clarity, the development can be more simply described as ‘replacement of roof to existing outbuildings’, and I have used that in the Decision above. The development has been carried out.

The Council says that the size and scale of the existing building has accrued over time and much of it, including its previous roof, appears to have been in place before the designation of the Old Selsey Conservation Area in 2017.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to Policies 1 and 2 of the Chichester Local Plan: [name] 2014-2029 (LP). LP Policy 1 reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and LP Policy 2 sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. The Council states that, as the site falls within the Selsey Settlement Boundary Area, the principle of a replacement roof is acceptable, subject to compliance with the Development Plan and other material considerations. So, [name] 1 and 2 are not the most relevant Policies in this appeal. 846

The appeal site is situated close to the junction of [address] and [address]. It is outside but next to the Conservation Area. [address] and [address] are listed in [name], and they are situated nearby within the Conservation Area. With this in mind, the main issues are the effect that the development has on the setting of the Conservation Area, and whether the settings of the listed buildings at [address] and [address] are preserved.

The site includes the dwelling at [site address] and outbuildings in its grounds at the back, and it is largely enclosed by tall boundary treatment. The nearby development in [address] mainly includes semidetached and detached dwellings. The site faces [address] to roughly north west, and it is adjoined by a steelwork business on a long narrow plot to roughly north east, back gardens of dwellings in [address] to roughly south east, and the grounds of [address] to roughly south west. The north corner of the garden of [address], which is partly behind [address], adjoins or is close to the roughly south corner of the site.

The Old Selsey Conservation Area character appraisal and management proposals (CAA) explains that the significance of the Conservation Area derives from its historic association with the early fishing community of Selsey which extended along the former [address] and [address], now [address] and [address]. The linear pattern of small cottages in tightly knit courtyard groups occupying shallow strips of land on either side of the road are important to its character. The many historic and traditional buildings and structures built in local materials, and the associated special features, including tide walls enclosing small front gardens, contribute positively to its appearance.

The roughly early C19 part hipped roofed [address] is identified in the CAA as one of 2 public houses that are situated at or near each end of the Conservation Area. It now has a roughly L-shaped plan form and faces onto [address] and [address] close by, but its most historic part includes the easternmost 3 (first floor) light range facing [address]. The roughly early C19 2 storey dwelling at [address] includes 2 gabled ranges parallel to [address], and it is set back from the street by its modest front space, parts of which are bounded by low beach pebble walls. The scale, forms, siting, and architectural features of these listed buildings are important to their special architectural interest and to their significance as historic buildings.

Due to its scale and siting, little of the development can be glimpsed in narrow views from [address] and [address]. However, the upper part of its south west facing gable end can be seen from [address] above the boundary treatment at the back of the public house’s garden and car park in the gap between the buildings at [address] and [address].

Historic maps in the CAA show that the plot of [address] was shallower in the late C19 than it is now, and along with other development in the Conservation Area including [address], it backed onto open fields in the surrounding countryside. The plot of [address] is now deeper, and the land behind [address] now includes the buildings and grounds at [address]. However, the openness in the present grounds of [address] and at [address], preserves some of the historic open character of the former fields within their settings that contributes positively to the special interest and significance of the listed buildings.

The settings of heritage assets evolve over time, and much of the Conservation Area’s surroundings have been developed. There are tiled, slate and thatched roofs within the Conservation Area that are important to its character and its appearance. However, the development is outside the Conservation Area, and the utilitarian character of the low profile sheet finished development respects the character of the similarly deep profile sheet roofed steelworks building beyond it. As the present roof is likely to look better and last longer than the previous roof, the restricted views of the development from some upper floor windows in nearby buildings within the Conservation Area should be enhanced. The development’s eaves can barely be seen, and as their proportions are consistent with its scale and form, they are acceptable.

As the roof now slopes consistently in each direction, it is a little taller than the previous roof, which included lower pitched sections to each main slope. It is also a little larger due to the extended part that can barely be seen from its surroundings. However, as its form and detailed design are simpler, overall, the development has a neutral effect on the settings of the heritage assets.

Thus, I consider that the development does not harm the setting of the Conservation Area, and that the development preserves the settings of the listed buildings at [address] and [address]. It satisfies LP Policy 33 which seeks a high standard of design and respect for the character of the area, and LP Policy 47 which aims to conserve the historic environment, and Framework chapter 16 which seeks to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The appellant has confirmed that the development is entirely for personal use as a swimming pool and recreational area, and the development’s use was not a concern of the Council in its reason for refusal. I see no reason to disagree.

The Council has suggested 3 conditions to deal with the implementation of the development, compliance with the approved plans, and for external materials. They have been considered in the light of Framework paragraph 56 and Planning Practice Guidance. As the development has been carried out, none of the suggested conditions are necessary, so they have not been imposed.

I have found that the development satisfies the Development Plan when taken as a whole. The other considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a determination otherwise.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.