Appeal 3307072

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for single storey rear and porch extensions, application of insulated render to exterior walls and new access and roadway to field at Cobscroft, [site address] , Derbyshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00590/FUL, dated 19 May 2022, 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: 2108-04E; 2108-02H; 2108-1A.

Details of the proposed insulated render shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before being applied to the external surfaces of the development hereby approved. The relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Details of the construction, engineering work, gradient, and landscaping of the approved access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before work to construct the access is commenced. The submitted details shall include cross-section drawings of the approved access from the point of egressing from the public highway to a point at least 15m into the site or where the gradient is level, whichever is sooner. The relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Derbyshire Dales District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The address of the proposal in the banner heading is taken from the planning application form. I note some confusion regarding the address of the proposal whereby the property name is referenced as [name] in a report to the Council’s planning committee, and in comments by various parties. However, the public notice advertising the planning application and the Council’s acknowledgement letter clearly reference Cobscroft; representations were submitted to the Council; and interested parties attended the planning committee. At my visit, a name plate clearly identified the property as Cobscroft. I am therefore satisfied that no parties have been prejudiced in this regard.

After submission of the planning application, the location plan was amended to include land within the highway verge. The Council advises that this was to ensure that the site included all land necessary to carry out the proposed development; that no further public consultation was carried out on the basis that the additional land was within the highway and that there was no change to the nature, extent or impacts of development proposed. The Council considers that no other parties were prejudiced by the amendment, and I find no reason to disagree.

A report regarding the planning application was made to the Council’s planning committee 16 August 2022 (the report), at which a decision was made to defer a decision in order to gather further information. This report has informed the main issues in this appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • the character and appearance of the area, including the settings of the Hulland Conservation Area and the grade II listed buildings of [name] and [address]; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Dumbles, with particular regard to privacy; overlooking; and noise and disturbance; and • highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a bungalow in a large plot within a rural area, where properties generally form ribbon development. The bungalow is well set back from the road, and due to the topography of the area, it occupies an elevated position in relation to the neighbouring detached property of Dumbles.

The appeal site is adjacent to the boundary of the Hulland Conservation Area (CA). From the limited information before me, the significance of the CA derives from [name] as a main house, constructed in the 17th century with later additions, and its ancillary buildings are also listed (grade II) for their group value. [name] is within the CA on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site, further to the west. [address] is adjacent to the appeal site and within the CA, and the listed building entry details a late 18th century house.

The setting of a heritage asset is not a fixed concept; it is concerned with the way the heritage asset is experienced. Due to their siting and scale, together with the surrounding topography, the proposed extensions, access and roadway would not appear in any public views from or towards the CA, nor would they adversely impact upon the setting of the listed buildings. The Council’s Conservation Officer raises no objection to the proposed development, and I find no reason to disagree. Consequently, I conclude that all of the elements of the proposal would preserve the setting of the CA and the nearby listed buildings.

The plot is large enough to accommodate the proposed extensions. Due to their scale, height, width, depth and design, the proposed extensions would not be out of keeping with the existing bungalow. A rendered finish would not be unique to the village, the colour of which could be controlled by a suitable

The proposed access and roadway would require a gap to be made within an existing hedgerow, and due to the local topography, some degree of engineering works would be required to provide a safe gradient for the proposed access and roadway. A similar design to the existing access serving the bungalow, which includes a ramp to a length of some 15m, would not harm the rural character of the road. A significant part of the hedgerow to the frontage of the appeal site has been removed following works by [name] (STW). The loss of a relatively small part of hedgerow of some 3.[address] to significant visual harm.

Furthermore, I saw other properties within the village with significantly wider and steeper accesses than that proposed, some with retaining walls to a considerable height. While the details that led to these frontages are not before me, they demonstrate that works to achieve access at gradient can be designed without necessarily resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This matter could be controlled by a suitable condition.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area; and it would preserve the setting of the Hulland Conservation Area and the settings of the grade II listed buildings of [name] and [address]. The proposal would accord with Policies S1, S4, PD1, PD2, HC10 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan 2017 (LP). Among other things, these policies seek to achieve sustainable development by ensuring that development is of a high-quality design that respects and positively contributes to local character, including that of rural roads; that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance; that their settings are not adversely impacted; and that extensions are suitable to the plot.

Due to its height, width and depth, the proposed single storey rear extension would project some 3.5m to the side of its host and it would include a window within its easterly elevation. While this window would provide an oblique view towards the rear elevation of Dumbles, the separation distance would be some 37m. Consequently, the proposed rear extension would not result in an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy and overlooking; and it would not be necessary nor reasonable to impose a condition for obscure glazing.

The proposed access and track would facilitate the use of vehicles to serve the appellant’s pastoral field, which is located outside the boundary of the planning application. While the use of such vehicles would result in some degree of noise and disturbance, this would not be out of keeping with the rural character of the area. Any noise and disturbance arising from the construction period of the proposal would be temporary.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Dumbles, with particular regard to privacy; overlooking; and noise and disturbance. The proposal accords with Polices S1 and PD1 of the LP, which seek to ensure that development is of high quality and does not cause unacceptable effects upon neighbouring amenity.

From the evidence before me, the proposed access and roadway would enable the servicing of the appellant’s pastoral field; with a width to allow access by agricultural vehicles; and to prevent such vehicles traversing an area of land under which STW mains apparatus lies. There is a further gate to the appellants field which leads into a further field with access to [site address] . The appellant advises that this gate is only for the purposes of hedge cutting. In this regard, the report details no objection to the justification for the proposed access and roadway, and I find no reason to disagree.

The proposed access and track would facilitate the use of agricultural vehicles, which would not be an uncommon activity within the rural area. There is little substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed access and roadway could not be safely designed, nor that the agricultural vehicles could not be safely accommodated on the highway network. The local highway authority (LHA) raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to the repositioning of a proposed gully, which is clearly shown on the submitted plans, and I find no reason to disagree.

Given the existence of the current access to serve the bungalow, and other works to facilitate access to other properties in the village, it is highly likely that a safe design is feasible. This view takes account of the concerns of interested parties, including but not limited to changes in land levels to neighbouring properties, the potential presence of underground apparatus/services, repositioning of inspection covers, visibility spays and the control of surface water discharge to the highway. Such matters can be controlled by a suitable condition. Thus, it follows that if a safe design was not feasible, these elements of the proposal would ultimately fail.

I note the concerns of interested parties that the position of the LHA is founded upon a desk-based assessment. From the evidence before me, the formal response of the LHA as a consultee to the planning application makes no such reference, although I note that their pre-application comments do so.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not result in any harm to highway safety. It would accord with Policies S1, S4, PD1, and HC19 of the LP. Taken together, these policies seek (among other things) to ensure that development is of high-quality design, accessed in a safe and sustainable manner; and located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development.

I note concerns that visibility splays serving the proposed access could encroach onto neighbouring land. However, matters relating to land ownership and rights of access are private matters and thus do not have any bearing of my consideration of the planning merits of the scheme. Interested parties raise concerns about the fear of future development that could be served by the proposed access and roadway. However, any proposal for further development would be a separate planning matter. There is no compelling evidence before me that the hedgerow is ancient, nor that wildlife would be significantly affected by the proposed development.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council and I have made amendments in the interests of clarity, precision and to ensure compliance with Planning Practice Guidance. Conditions specifying the time limit and the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty. I have imposed a condition specifying external materials are to be agreed, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition to address details of the proposed access and roadway is necessary to ensure highway safety, and in the interest of the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to warrant a decision otherwise in accordance with it. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.