Appeal 3300352

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal property is a detached 2-storey house of individual design with a single storey detached double garage, which stand on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address] within a predominantly residential area. The garage is situated towards one corner of the house. It is set back from the road and occupies an elevated position relative to the highway due to the notable difference in ground levels.

At present, the garage, due to its modest scale and height, is clearly an ancillary building to the main house. With large doors facing the road, its function is unmistakable. Although evident from both [address] and [address], the garage also has an unassuming presence in the local street scene.

The site falls within the Stanion Conservation Area (CA). From what I saw, the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset largely derives from the numerous and varied historic and traditional style buildings, many of which are attractively designed. The appeal property is not listed nor is it identified on the Council’s Stanion Conservation Plan as a building of local interest.

The garage stands just inside the CA boundary beyond which is estate style housing facing [address] just to the west. In this position, the garage and the space around it provide a visual break between taller and more substantial buildings on either side. In doing so, they mark a transition point at the interface of the CA where the suburban feel and modern style of existing housing further along [address] outside of this designated area contrasts with the more historic and irregular pattern of development within it. As such, this part of the site plays a positive role in the streetscape and the CA.

The proposal is to extend the existing garage upwards to facilitate the use of the first floor as a playroom within the roof space that would be served by roof lights at the front and rear of the building. The proposed external materials would match those of the host building, which would be appropriate.

The completed building would be noticeably taller and larger than its existing counterpart. Although the new ridge line would be set well below that of the main house and the adjacent dwelling to the west, the new front and side elevations would appear more substantive in the street scene. That the garage is at a higher level than the road would reinforce this impression given the upward view from this vantage point. The inclusion of roof lights prominently placed on the front roof slope, thereby signalling a potential first floor, would also visually accentuate the perceived scale and mass of the enlarged building.

From the [address] and [address] junction, the proposal would draw the eye given that its scale, bulk and height would be atypical of an ancillary building or a double garage in a residential area. It would disrupt the relationship to the main house because the completed building would no longer visually ‘read’ as clearly subordinate to it. By introducing additional built form in a prominent location, the appeal scheme would also diminish the space above the garage. In doing so, the subtle role of the site in the townscape by providing a smooth visual transition between contrasting properties within and just beyond the CA would be undermined. For all of these reasons, I consider that the proposal would introduce a discordant element and that it would be deleterious to the character and appearance of the local area.

Given the modest scale of the proposal, the harm caused by the appeal scheme on the significance of CA as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. In those circumstances, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits. While the additional accommodation proposed would benefit the appellant and his family, this would be largely private. No other public benefits have been put forward and none would outweigh the identified harm.

On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. It would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. As such, the appeal scheme conflicts with Policies 2 and 8 of the [name] 2011-2031. These policies aim to ensure that development conserves if not enhances the historic environment, responds to the site’s context, and creates buildings that draw on the best of local character.

There would also be a conflict with the Framework with regard to the protection of designated heritage assets and with the statutory duty. This duty requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, which I have done.

In 1998, planning permission was granted for a first-floor extension above the garage that was not implemented. However, that permission has now lapsed, and the decision predates current national and local planning policies and the designation of the CA, which the Officer’s report states took place in 2007. As the circumstances have fundamentally changed in the interim, I can only attach limited weight to the previous decision in support of the appeal.

I note that the proposed extension follows the Council’s earlier decision to refuse planning permission for a taller extension to the garage. I also acknowledge that others raise no objection. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.