Appeal 3282531

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for an extension to main house to form a new main entrance door and lobby, that includes a WC and utility room. Refurbishment of annexe to provide new facilities for guests. New detached garage and workshop with space for two cars at [site address] , [site address] , Staunton, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1131/21/FUL, dated 17 June 2021, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have taken the description of development from the application form. Although different to that on the decision notice, no confirmation has been provided to indicate a change was agreed.

It has been put to me that the works to the annex do not require planning permission. They are shown on the submitted plans and included in the description of development. Therefore, I have considered them as part of the appeal scheme.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the Staunton and Corse Conservation Area (CA) and the heritage significance of [site address] .

The appeal site is located within the CA. As such, I have had regard to the duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. Planning Practice Guidance defines a non-designated heritage asset as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions and indicates that local planning authorities may identify non-designated heritage assets as part of the decision-making process on planning applications1, as has been done in this instance.

The significance of the CA lies, in part, in the Chartist origins of the settlement and the political and social ideas this represented. The CA has individual rows of properties that often have regular plots and open areas that gives a spaciousness to the area. [site address] has retained a distinct curved layout with open spaces opposite the frontage properties that a located in relatively narrow but lengthy plots.

As with many of the other cottages in the row, the appeal property has been extended and altered, with some original features, such as the shape of the openings and detailing being lost, and new external materials added. Nevertheless, the significance of the property lies in the retained frontage proportions, central gable and plot layout. Therefore, it currently contributes positively to the significance of the CA and is a non-designated heritage asset.

The annexe is located close to the main dwelling. As a result, and due to the existing boundary treatments, the gap between them is not readily apparent in many views from the street or nearby properties. The proposed link joining the annexe and main dwelling would be set back from the front building line, be of a relatively small footprint and have a lower ridge line than the main dwelling. Views to the rear of the plot and beyond would remain over the existing parking area.

As a result, it would appear subordinate, not disrupt the proportions of the front elevation of the cottage or meaningfully reduce the feeling of spaciousness at the plot. In addition, it would involve limited works to the existing main dwelling and the timber porch would help break up the mass of the property as experienced from the road.

The proposed garage would have a large footprint and would be seen in views from the road and other properties. Nonetheless, it would be set back some distance from the road and property appearing clearly separate. This would allow views through the site and there would be a break in the built form across the plot width. While new planting would take some time to mature, this would also soften the appearance of the garage and partly screen it as would the existing boundary hedge and outbuildings at the adjacent plot. A condition is imposed regarding details of a landscape scheme.

Although of a different size, form and materials, the garage would replace existing outbuildings that are in a similar position and the existing parking and turning area would be used. Moreover, there are a range of outbuildings along [address], many of which were clearly visible from the road and some that have led to much of the plot frontage being filled. I also saw that outbuildings, of a comparable size to that proposed and to the rear of the cottages in this row, was not uncommon.

As such, the presence of the garage would not appear discordant with the pattern of built form in the crescent. External materials would match those currently at the property so there would be an obvious association with it. 1 Paragraph: 039 [name]: 18a-[phone] and Paragraph: 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723

The development would be visible from a nearby listed building (Jeanicia). The significance of this lies in its links to the Chartist movement and retention of much of its original detailing, form and plot layout. The setting already includes properties that have been altered and enlarged with associated outbuildings. Therefore, this would not be harmed by the proposed development.

Consequently, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of the CA and of [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset. The scheme would accord with the design and heritage protection aims of CSP.1 of the [name], Policies AP4, AP5 and AP109 of the Allocations Plan, and the Forest of [name]. It would also comply with the historic environment policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 72(1) of the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act.

The proposal is for an extension to an existing dwelling rather than as a separate unit of accommodation. Were any planning breach to occur in the future this would be a matter for the Council.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed one requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interest of certainty. To protect the character and appearance of the area conditions regarding the external materials and a landscape scheme are imposed.

For the reasons given, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions below.

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: Site Location Plan 2101.SLP; [name] 2101.S01; [name] and Elevations 2101.S02; [name] 2101.PL01B; Proposed Section and Elevations 2101.PL02; Proposed Site Plan 2101.PL03; Proposed Double Garage Plan, Section and Elevations 2101.PL04; [address] Elevation 2101.PL05; Proposed Roof Plan 2101.PL06; [name]/MGC/01; and [name]/MGC/02.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building unless otherwise shown on the approved plans.

Prior to any above ground works a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: i. Boundary treatments, ii. Planting plans, iii. Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, iv. Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, v. Indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development; and vi. An implementation programme. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.