Appeal 3290435

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of attached double garage; Conversion of existing garage to store and home office; Reprofile existing driveway; Construction of retaining wall; Replace existing driveway with turfed area; Addition of canopy porch to front elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/02235/FUL, dated 30 July 2021 subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

This is the effect of the development on the setting of [address] ([name] listed) and the [address] street scene.

The appeal scheme seeks permission for a single storey front extension projecting 6.5m forward of the existing front elevation. The Council argue that the proposed front extension would be seen in angled views of [address] and would therefore harm its setting.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that setting is “the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”.

Against that definition, I find it too simplistic to equate intervisibility and setting. A proper understanding of a building’s setting can only be gained by fully understanding what the asset’s special qualities are and how these are experienced. From the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the Council has approached its assessment in this way.

The value of [address] as a heritage asset is primarily derived from it being a well-preserved example of 17/18th Century vernacular architecture. In that regard, I concur with the Appellant that [address]’s heritage significance relates primarily to its architectural interest and its immediate setting. In this case, that setting is clearly defined on the ground by the curtilage of [address]. The public are able to experience and enjoy the architectural interest and setting of [address] from [address] in views along the driveway where the building commands an elevated position.

From my observations, the ribbon of modern development to the north makes a very limited contribution to the way [address] is experienced, understood and enjoyed by the public at large. There is ample separation between the appeal site and the asset which is set back some distance from the roadside behind a band of mature landscaping. The building is principally seen in direct views along the driveway and is well-screened in longer distance views to the north-east and south-west.

I accept the front extension would encroach to some degree into longer distance views of the asset from the north-east, notably around the access to [address]. However, the overall effect would be marginal, and this is unlikely to be a location from where the public currently enjoy or experience the asset given its partial concealment by the appeal property. The proposed development would have no effect on the principal views of [address] referred to above.

For the above reasons, I find that the effect of the proposed development on the setting of [address] would be neutral. As a consequence, there would be no breach of the duty under Section 66 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

As the [name] demonstrate, the scale of the extension would be modest and clearly subservient to the main dwelling, it would also be set back generously from [address] at a higher level and constructed in matching materials. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that the extension would not have an unacceptable impact on the [address] street scene.

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the development would not conflict with Policies 10 and 11 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name], Policies 1 and 28 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies, the Framework or the [name] 2009. Amongst other things these seek the protection of heritage assets, a positive contribution to the public realm and the reinforcement of valued local characteristics.

To provide certainty I have imposed a plans and time-limit condition. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.